Hegemony of the Fourth and Fifth Estates: Exploration of Ideology and False Consciousness in the Media

Transcription

1 University of Central Florida Electronic Theses and Dissertations Masters Thesis (Open Access) Hegemony of the Fourth and Fifth Estates: Exploration of Ideology and False Consciousness in the Media 2016 Anna Turner University of Central Florida Find similar works at: University of Central Florida Libraries STARS Citation Turner, Anna, "Hegemony of the Fourth and Fifth Estates: Exploration of Ideology and False Consciousness in the Media" (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact

2 HEGEMONY OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH ESTATES: EXPLORATION OF IDEOLOGY AND FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE MEDIA by ANNA COLLEEN TURNER B.A. University of Central Florida, 2006 M.A. University of Central Florida, 2011 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Nicholson School of Communication in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Summer Term 2016

3 ABSTRACT Hegemony is a process of dialectic political control. On one side, intellectuals use political and economic channels to convey an ideology, a set of principles, to the public, and on the other side, the public accepts this ideology, thus consenting to the status quo (Boggs, 1976). Research suggests that media are hegemonic entities that reinforce ideology (Bielby & Moloney, 2008; Lewis, 1999a). Traditional news media comprise the fourth estate, while the blogosphere, often heralded as media critics, constitutes the fifth. Limited research exists on the fifth estate, which, due to the ubiquity of the internet, has emerged as a public information source. On September 17, 2011, approximately 1,000 people gathered in Zuccotti Park in New York City s Wall Street financial district to protest social and economic inequality. The Occupy Wall Street movement garnered the attention of mainstream media, and it continued to do so for a sustained period of time. The movement also had a presence in the fifth estate. The subject of the movement and its presence in both estates, make it an ideal topic for comparing hegemony in the fourth and fifth estates. This content analysis explored the existence of hegemonic frames in news and blog coverage of Occupy Wall Street. Hegemonic frames existed to some extent in both estates, especially frames that highlighted deviant aspects of the movement. Counterhegemonic frames also existed in both estates, with a tendency to call into question acts of the government. Although counterhegemonic frames were present in both news articles and fifth-estate blogs, the fifth estate was more likely to question corporations, implying that the fourth estate was ignoring corporate malfeasance, which could be a factor in organizing consent of the people to the ideological status quo. ii

4 I dedicate this thesis to my parents for encouraging my intellectual curiosity growing up. Thank you for being proud of your progressive-liberal daughter, and thank you for keeping Fox News out of the house until I moved out. iii

5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my unremitting gratitude to my thesis committee members for taking on a quantitative thesis grounded in critical theory. Each of their unique perspectives have made me a more thoughtful and engaged scholar, and their impact on my intellectual growth is immeasurable. Professor George Bagley, thank you for broadening and sharpening my understanding of critical theory in general and within the field of mass communication. My ability to articulate the nuances of Marxism and Neo-Marxism and participate in conversations in the discipline are a product of your excellent feedback and discussions. Dr. George Musambira, thank you for reminding me about praxis in critical theory and for encouraging discussions of the implications of my research. Your unique perspective has not only added to the content of my research, but has reminded me of why I enjoy critical theory and has encouraged me to pursue action research as I continue in the field. Dr. William Kinnally, there are no words to express how grateful I am that you agreed to chair the process that was my thesis. Your patience, comments, feedback, discussions, and expert guidance through this entire journey was invaluable. You have molded me as a scholar since day one of the graduate program, and I am truly indebted to all that you have done for me. iv

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES... vii LIST OF TABLES... viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION... 1 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW... 5 Hegemony... 5 Hegemony of the Fourth Estate... 9 Media as a Hegemonic Entity... 9 Consent Media Practices The Fifth Estate Blogging in the United States Occupy Wall Street Framing Research on Occupy Wall Street Hypotheses and Research Questions CHAPTER THREE: METHOD Data Sample Measurement Estates/Type of Publication Sources and Attributions Hegemonic and Counterhegemonic Frames v

7 Codebook CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Analysis Results Hegemonic Frames Counterhegemonic Frames Frames of the Fourth and Fifth Estates Elite and Non-Elite Sources Source Attributions CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION Frames within Estates Hegemonic Frames Counterhegemonic Frames Elite and Non-Elite Sources Limitations and Future Research Audience and Circulation Agenda-Setting Theory and Priming Positivist Macro-Level Research Conclusion APPENDIX A: CODEBOOK APPENDIX B: CODING SHEET REFERENCES vi

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Comparison of the number of instances of frames among publication types Figure 2: The number of instances of frames within publication type Figure 3: Source use among publication types/estates vii

9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Overview of Variables and Levels of Measurement Table 2. Interrater Reliability Levels of Agreement for Sources (N =90) Table 3. Interrater Reliability Levels of Agreement for Frame Indicators (N =90) Table 4. Interrater Reliability Levels of Agreement for Source Attributions Table 5. Strength of Agreement for the Kappa Statistic Table 6. Percentage of News Articles Containing Hegemonic Frames as Marked Present by Both Coders (N = 30) Table 7. Percentage of Fourth-Estate Blogs Containing Hegemonic Frames as Marked Present by Both Coders (N = 30) Table 8. Percentage of Fifth-Estate Blogs Containing Hegemonic Frames as Marked Present by One and Both Coders (N = 30) Table 9. Comparison of Percentages of Articles and Blogs with Hegemonic Frames Table 10. Differences in Percentages of Hegemonic Frame Indicators between Publication Types/Estates Table 11. Total Instances of Counterhegemonic Frames in Fourth-Estate Articles, Fourth-Estate Blogs, and Fifth-Estate Blogs Table 12. Differences in Percentages of Counterhegemonic Frame Indicators between Publication Types/Estates viii

10 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Approximately 1,000 people gathered in Zuccotti Park in New York City s Wall Street financial district on September 17, 2011, to protest social and economic inequality ( Occupy Wall Street, n.d.; Timeline of Occupy, n.d.). Occupy Wall Street was a series of demonstrations and part of a broader Occupy movement aimed at protesting social and economic inequality ( About, n.d.; Occupy Wall Street, n.d.; Quick Facts, 2012). Occupy Wall Street began on September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, which is part of New York City s Wall Street financial district ( Occupy Wall Street, n.d.). Approximately 1,000 people attended the September 17 demonstration, which was first promoted on July 13, 2011 via the Adbusters Foundation blog ( #OCCUPYWALLSTREET, 2011; Timeline of Occupy, n.d.). The Adbusters Foundation is a not-for-profit social activist organization based in Vancouver, Canada ( #OCCUPYWALLSTREET, 2011; About Adbusters, n.d.; Occupy Wall Street, n.d.; Timeline of Occupy, n.d.). The series of demonstrations did not have a unique set of specific aims, but there are several places on the internet where multiple objectives can be found (see About, n.d.; Liberty Square Blueprint, n.d.; Occupy Wall Street, n.d.). Examples of objectives include: facilitating growth of local movements, re-appropriating the media culture, and defending inalienable rights ( Liberty Square Blueprint, n.d.). Although Occupy Wall Street began on that Saturday in mid-september, the first major media coverage came via Keith Olbermann of the now-defunct Current TV after the stock market opened on Monday, September 19 ( Quick Facts, 2012; Timeline of Occupy, n.d.). Nascent mainstream media coverage came by the end of the week, providing Occupy Wall Street national attention ( Timeline of Occupy, n.d.). Since Occupy Wall Street was a movement focused on 1

11 economic and social inequalities, and garnered the attention of mainstream media, it provides the opportunity to examine how media can perpetuate a dominant ideology, which may result in the maintenance of a capitalist political and economic system. At the crux of this approach is the concept of hegemony, which describes how the status quo is maintained through the dissemination of ideology. Antonio Gramsci is credited with presenting the idea that there is a dialectic opposition between the public s general conception of life and a set of principles (ideology) that is imposed by the elite (the social class that has the most political and economic clout); a concept called hegemony (Boggs, 1976, p. 39). Hegemony is a type of political control that takes place in a dualistic manner: on the one side, intellectuals use political and economic channels to convey an ideology (the set of principles) to the public, on the other side, the public views this ideology as the status quo. This process is systematic, but not coercive or necessarily deliberate (Reese, 1997). Gramsci s concept of hegemony was born out of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engel s philosophical discussion of ideology, which concentrated on individuals perceptions of a distorted belief system (Eyerman, 1981; Gitlin, 2003). One important task for ideology is to define and also define away its opposition (Gitlin, 2003, p. 2). That is, for hegemony to exist, the elite must define society s ideology and prevent alternative ideologies from prevailing; they must maintain the status quo. The process by which the status quo is maintained is not constant, but exists as a continuous struggle between the elite and lower classes. This competition reflects the dialectic nature of hegemony (Artz, 2006). According to Gramsci, the ability of the dominant class to define ideology and mitigate dissent is how it maintains power (Boggs, 1976). 2

12 There is an abundance of research that suggests the traditional media are hegemonic entities (Bielby & Moloney, 2008; Lewis, 1999a). Media, especially news media, tend to overrepresent elite discourses and powerful interests (Lewis, 1999a, p. 251). Media frameworks mirror American democracy, a system developed out of the success of capitalism and void of a feudal past, which is the Americanism ideology that Gramsci discussed (Boggs, 1976; Lewis 1999a). According to Marxist scholars, hegemonic institutions are social institutions that function to reproduce the social order and its mechanisms of production. These include the educational system, the legal system, the political system, and an institutionalized cultural system (Artz, 2006). To Marx, capitalism was designed to keep social order by putting the means of production in the hands of the elite while simultaneously reinforcing an ideology that maintained oppression of the masses (Marx & Engels, 1964). The same may be said about media, which can function as a hegemonic institution as stated above. That is, the media have the ability to reinforce capitalism and maintain the political system (Lewis, 1999a). This is contrary to the idea that media are the watchdogs of society. The press comprises the fourth estate, which has previously been seen as an important democratic entity independent of the government that serves as a watchdog of the state (Dutton, 2009). However, some researchers now view it as a hegemonic institution (see Artz, 2006; Bielby & Moloney, 2008; Gitlin, 2003; Lewis, 1999a; Reese, 1997). With the adoption of the internet, however, a new form of communication has evolved in the blogosphere where public discourse can thrive (Kelly, 2008). Bloggers, who are often heralded as media critics, have come to constitute the fifth estate, or the watchers of the watchdogs (Cooper, 2006). In contrast to the fourth estate, the fifth estate is free of a corporate 3

13 structure, which gives it the potential to circumvent hegemonic ideology. The characteristics of the internet and the low financial threshold for publishing allows for independent voices, which could challenge hegemonic ideology in mass-mediated communication. However, the organic and pervasive nature of hegemony that Gramsci (1971) describes is so ingrained throughout society that it is reasonable that the fifth estate, which exists within hegemonic society, could also function as a hegemonic institution, unless the institution itself is conscious of the ideology. Although the press has been empirically identified as a hegemonic institution (e.g. Artz, 2006; Bielby & Moloney, 2008; Gitlin, 2003; Lewis, 1999a; Reese, 1997), little is known about the fifth estate, or alternative media. The purpose of this research is to provide a comparative analysis of text produced by the fourth and fifth estates. I will explore the extent to which hegemony is similarly evident in the fourth and fifth estates coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The Occupy movement provides a unique opportunity to study possible differences in the two realms. First, it is a social movement highlighting social and economic inequality. Second, the movement originated via the internet and is situated during a time where independent voices can use the internet to organize dissent. Finally, Occupy Wall Street has received significant coverage by mainstream media. For these reasons, Occupy Wall Street is an appropriate subject with which to compare hegemonic frames and discourse in the two estates. 4

14 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW The goal of this research is to identify hegemonic frames in the media and compare their presence in the fourth and fifth estates. I will begin with an overview of hegemony and the distinction between hegemonic principles and false consciousness. I will then discuss the fourth estate as a purveyor of hegemony, including the media as a hegemonic entity, how media manufacture consent from the public, and media practices that contribute to hegemony. Next, I will cover the fifth estate: what constitutes the fifth estate, characteristics of the blogosphere, and its potential as a collection of independent voices or as a hegemonic force. Finally, I will explain why Occupy Wall Street is a suitable subject for comparison of the fourth and fifth estates. Hegemony Gramsci (1971) introduced the idea of hegemony, indirect and dialectic political control, out of an interpretation of Marxist theory. It can also be defined as the ruling class s domination through ideology (Gitlin, 2003, p. 9). Gramsci (1971) posited that the classical Marxist approach to power was one-sided. Gramsci believed that the Marxist idea of control originated from the dominant ruling class, who owned the means of production, and was forced upon the working class via direct coercion; furthermore, Gramsci cultivates Marx s original ideas into a less coercive paradigm. Marx never used the term hegemony, as the idea was Gramsci s, but two terms associated with Marxist theory, ideology and false consciousness, appear to relate to hegemony (Eyerman, 1981). Classical Marxism considers ideology and false consciousness as equivocal concepts whose commensurate nature exists because of the dual meaning of ideology. Marx, who never explicitly used the term false consciousness, used ideology to describe illusory beliefs or false ideas (Williams, 1977). As a criticism of Hegel and political economy, Marx, and 5

15 his collaborator Fredrich Engels, advocated that this type of ideology occurred primarily among the bourgeois, or intellectuals (Eyerman, 1981). Marx and Engels only equate such an ideology with the beliefs that intellectuals held about society and the power of their own ideas (Eyerman, 1981, p. 43). In a sense, Marxist ideology was one-sided in that he believed only intellectuals were subject to this distorted ideology or false consciousness. However, through Gramsci, false consciousness is attributed to the masses and the distinction between ideology and false consciousness becomes evident (Eyerman, 1981). In Gramsci s view, ideology is a cultural totality, pervasive among culture, and therefore, unconscious to all within it. He refers to a single cultural climate shared by all segments of society (Gramsci, 1971, p. 349), meaning that all classes internalize the dominant ideology. Williams (1973) describes this: For hegemony supposes the existence of something which is truly total, which is not merely secondary or superstructural, like the weak sense of ideology, but which is lived at such a depth, which saturates the society to such an extent, and which, as Gramsci put it, even constitutes the limit of common sense for most people under its sway, that it corresponds to the reality of social experience very much more clearly than any notions derived from the formula of base and superstructure. For if ideology were merely some abstract imposed notion, if our social and political and cultural ideas and assumptions and habits were merely the result of specific manipulation, of a kind of overt training which might be simply ended or withdrawn, then the society would be very much easier to move and to change than in practice it has ever been or is. This notion of hegemony as deeply saturating the consciousness of a society seems to be fundamental. And hegemony 6

16 has the advantage over general notions of totality, that it at the same time emphasizes the facts of domination [emphasis added] (p. 8). Because some scholars believe Marxism was one-sided, classical Marxism contrasts with the ideological, dualistic nature of hegemony espoused by Gramsci (Boggs, 1976). Since the process of hegemony fluctuates in order to maintain the status quo, according to Gramsci, it runs the risk of losing all notions of Marxist determination and ruling-class dominance (Lewis, 1992, p. 280). However, Marx does describe a dialectic aspect of capitalist ideology that parallels hegemony (Artz, 2006; Smelser, 1973). Marx (1967) argued that ideology was in a constant state of flux through the dialectic (or dualistic) struggle of the classes; there is a struggle between the classes over power and within the elite class to not give up power (Artz, 2006; Smelser, 1973). He argued that a dialectical relationship between institutions and the masses existed, which actually parallels Gramsci s interpretation of the conflict (Kumar, 2006). Out of this conflict, hegemonic ideology forms and is continually reinvented. For Gramsci, the terms ideology and false consciousness are not synonymous. Ideology explains the state of false consciousness, but false consciousness makes hegemony possible, thus exists a dialectic relationship. Social order exists in a hegemonic system because of the support or at least the usually unquestioned acceptance of the majority (Eyerman, 1981, p. 46). Eyerman (1981) clarifies Gramsci s distinction between ideology and false consciousness: false consciousness refers to an experience in society, ideology to a proposed or offered explanation of that experience (p. 55). That is, false consciousness is the resulting state of mind from an elite-produced ideology. 7

17 For this study, the terms are defined as follows: Ideology is a set of principles that make up a belief system in society. Hegemony is a form of ideological control perpetuated by the dominant class in which the status quo is maintained through culture. This definition respects the fluidity of Gramsci s hegemony, but still maintains the Marxist emphasis on the dialectic relationship between the ruling class and the masses. Hegemonic ideology is a set of principles that support a belief system that is advantageous to the dominant class. False consciousness is the state of mind of the subordinate classes resulting from the process of hegemony. Hegemonic ideology and false consciousness are integrated, but separate notions. Therefore, it would be unwise to study the effects or experience (false consciousness) in society without first providing empirical evidence that such an ideology is evident in society. This study focuses on seeking empirical evidence for the explanation of false consciousness, hegemonic ideology (not the experience itself), which is lacking in the current body of literature. Gramsci claimed that the United States provides the best example of a society integrated with hegemonic ideology (Boggs, 1976). Americanism, as he called it, represents a capitalist society devoid of a feudal past, whose foundations were built upon the ideas of corporate and technical rationality (p. 51). That is, the value of competition is pervasive throughout history of American culture; those who embrace it are regarded as innovative and successful. The fundamental idea of capitalism, and the lack of any other economic history in America, has bred a hegemonic ideology. Hegemony happens when the ideology of the capitalist elite is imposed upon the masses to maintain the status quo. So, using Eyerman s (1981) clarification on hegemonic ideology and false consciousness, we can look to present-day media for evidence of a hegemonic ideology that potentially causes false consciousness. 8

18 Hegemony of the Fourth Estate Of all the institutions of daily life, the media specialize in orchestrating everyday consciousness (Gitlin, 2003, pp. 1-2). Media as a Hegemonic Entity People are dependent on the media. They rely on the media for communication with the outside world: acquire news and information; develop personal identity; develop personal relationships; understand symbols; understand language; strengthen understanding of self, others or society; and strengthen connections with self, family or society (e.g., Gitlin, 2003; Katz, Gurevitch, & Haas, 1973; McQuail, Blumler, & Brown, 1972; Rubin, 2009). Public reliance on media gives mediated messages a substantial amount of power, making mass media core systems for the distribution of ideology (Gitlin, 2003, p. 2). Since the media are fundamental distributors of ideology, they are a key force in the purveyance of hegemony. Hegemony reinforcement of corporate and political interests is not obvious in text. The context of the text is always hidden from the public, specifically the processes of production behind the text (Grossberg, 1984). I will first address the process of production and then return to the discussion of texts. In regard to the processes of production, it is important to note that media organizations are corporations grounded in the culture in which they exist. Deetz (1985) makes two points about organizations in regard to critical theory they are social-historical constructions, meaning the throngs of organizations, society and culture are interrelated, that corporations embody and represent certain human interests, meaning they are political (Deetz, 1985). He also suggests that corporate values, specifically consumerism and individualism, extend outside corporations into culture and society, including news production organizations. 9

19 As an organization that operates within a corporate culture, mass media represent and advocate culture, especially consumer lifestyles and legitimacy of corporate domination (Deetz, 1993). If we look further into the opacity of the processes of production for mass media, we can see how media may align with hegemonic institutions. One example of how the processes of production are hidden from the general public can be found in the procedures of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC exists to represent the public s interests (Dunbar, 2005). According to the FCC website, one of the competencies the commission focuses on is promoting competition (FCC, n.d.). In a study focused on the policies of the FCC, Dunbar (2005) observed that the agency has an open-door policy with top executives (of the companies the commission is supposed to be regulating), who provide the commissioners with free travel and entertainment worth millions (p. 127). Many commissioners are former industry executives and lawyers. Even though this job-hopping isn t illegal, it can cause conflicts of interest (p. 132). A commissioner could give inside information to corporate leaders or their vote could be swayed with the expectation of receiving a well-paid, executive position from one of the companies. According to Dunbar, there have also been instances where, days before an important vote on regulating the industry, commissioners have taken meetings with industry leaders such as Rupert Murdoch (Fox) and Mel Karmazin (CBS), a luxury that is not afforded to the general public. Critics argue that these ex parte meetings take place to exclude the public s involvement. Furthermore, much of the FCC s activities go unreported by traditional media. Some contend that this reflects a conspiracy of silence that broadcasters are unwilling to cover their own industry, but perhaps the proceedings are not newsworthy because they are often technical and dull (Dunbar, 2005, p. 128). However, in the 10

20 past, one-third of editors of chain news organizations have reported that they would not be comfortable reporting on a story involving their parent company (Badgikian, 1992). Since proceedings go largely unreported, they cannot have a direct hegemonic effect via output from the media, but their absence may have an indirect effect. To determine how this occurs, I turn to the idea of consent via media, which will lead into my discussion of the role of text in hegemony. Consent Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky are credited with the term manufacture consent. For Gramsci (1971), hegemony is a form of leadership exercised by one class or social group in concert with others, thus enlisting consent, rather than ordering it in a top-down model. Gramsci posits that the top-down model would fail because any sign of coercion would erode consensus of the public. Herman and Chomsky (2002), return slightly to the Marxist determinist view by proposing a propaganda model, an approach that suggests a systematic and highly political dichotomization in news coverage based on serviceability to important domestic power interests (p. 35). In countries where the state controls the media, it is clear that the media serve the interests of the dominant elite. There is ambiguity, however, in the persuasive opportunities for the dominant elite in media that operate independently of the state (Herman & Chomsky, 2002). In order for the elite to maintain control, they must do so through the process of hegemony by gaining the consent of the public. Consent is an organic process in which public dissent is marginalized and the appearance of support for an ideology is realized (Herman & Chomsky, 2002; Lewis, 1999a). The public is not aware that this ideology serves the interests of the elite 11

21 and that it is being imposed on them (Eyerman, 1981). This process of manufacturing consent happens without the public s knowledge (Lewis, 1999a). The process of hegemony generally involves the struggle to create consent for a system that favors certain dominant interests. Popular resistance to the pursuance of those interests can be overcome by creating an ideological climate in which it is possible, in Herman and Chomsky s phrase, to manufacture consent. (Lewis, 1999a, p. 263) Public consent is manufactured by providing information in a system that has democratic attributes. In order to retain power and maintain public consent, elite classes need to reproduce an ideology that supports a capitalist economy, but has the appearance of supporting or at least acknowledging the subordinate classes (Artz, 2006). Hegemonic success often depends on how well the dominant classes and their representatives can incorporate contributions and challenges from subordinate classes into an ideology that may modify but reinforce and protect the existing social relations of production of life (p. 33). Consent happens because intellectuals (who inform or create media output) are granted a certain prestige by the public because of their status, so the ideology that is reflected by this group (often through traditional media) is accepted without question. Furthermore, the process is aided by the views of a participating public, which are grounded in cultural dominant ideology of consumerism and individualism. Public consensus is aided by three ideological beliefs: private rights are of more importance than public rights, greater faith in market economy than democracy, and media are largely apolitical and value neutral (Deetz, 1993). However, this process is still not simple. 12

22 Manufactured consent can be established by giving the appearance of public support. One way this can be done is through the use of public opinion polls (Lewis, 1999a). Many people interpret statistics from public opinion polls as what America thinks, even though there is no homogenous public (Lewis, 1999b). It is difficult, if not impossible, to capture the diverse, often nuanced, opinions of individual citizens with a few, targeted poll questions. Public opinion can be distorted by limitations or wording in the questions asked, the types of polls that get reported, and how journalists interpret those polls. Rewording a question in the positive or negative can change response significantly. For example, using the word forbid versus allow can change responses by 21 percentage points (see Schuman & Presser, 1996). Polls are reported using the framework of journalistic assumptions, assumptions [that] push the representation of public opinion toward a hegemonic frame in which public opinion is appropriated within a center-right mainstream (Lewis, 1999b, p. 206). The public opinion poll is reported in such a way that has the ability to contribute to the manufacturing of consent. Public opinion polls are one way media can contribute to the manufacture of consent. Reporter news routines can also be a factor. Gitlin (2003) suggests that news routines play a role in producing content that does not fundamentally contradict the dominant hegemonic principles (p. 271). These principles include: the legitimacy of private control of commodity production; the legitimacy of the national security State; the legitimacy of technocratic experts; the right and ability of authorized agencies to manage conflict and make the necessary reforms; the legitimacy of the social order secured and defined by the dominant elites; and the value of individualism as the measure of social existence (Gitlin, 2003, p. 271). 13

23 Gitlin (2003) also expounds that political news is treated like crime news, so any potential opposition is reported as a disruption, not a potential reform to these principles or change in ideology. I will further define these principles in the following sections. Legitimacy of private control of commodity production. As stated previously, according to Marx (1967) a capitalist mode of production allowed those who owned the means of production, the capitalist elite, to maintain domination over the subordinate classes. In a hegemonic system, this domination is maintained by legitimizing corporate ownership in social ideology (Gramsci, 1971). For Marx, the mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political and spiritual processes of life (Harris, 1979, p. 55). It is the character of these processes that reflects hegemony and therefore, legitimizes capitalist production. This Marxist perspective still has merit in modern society. Although Marx s theory is endemic to an industrial society, mode of production is relevant in today s society. Products are becoming intangible and mode of production can increasingly be referred to as mode of information (Poster, 1990). In the modern, digital era, products of knowledge and communications, and the corporations that control such discourse, are equally powerful, capitalist institutions (Poster, 2001). As such, they, too, need to be legitimized through hegemony. Legitimacy of the national security state. Throughout the history of the United States, political and military order has been obtained through ideological threat to the country (De Genova, 2007). For example, the Cold War was presented as a threat to American capitalism. Words such as communism, which represents an opposing ideology to capitalism, and terrorism, which represents an ideologically driven attack on the United States, have been used to 14

24 legitimize United States national defense. Prior to 9/11, there were ideological changes to legitimize the National Security State. During World War II, politicians and intellectuals were faced with the challenge of gaining acceptance of a nuclear state during a time when traditional values opposed big government and military (Lawrence, 1996). In response to this ideological dilemma, hegemony was attained by a liberal/technocratic discourse creating a fusion of reasonableness with scientism and instrumental rationality (p. 47). Politicians and intellectuals used the media to disseminate rhetoric in support of an expanded National Security State with the goal of obtaining consent from an audience that opposed such governmental power; this was a hegemonic action, which highlights the indefinite characteristic of hegemony. The supposed threat to the United States was intensified during WWII in order to make nuclear retaliation seem like a rational response; one that was supported by intellectuals in order to gain the public s consent. Arguably, journalists become complacent in perpetuating this legitimacy because of their saturation to use Williams s (1973) term within the dominant ideology; they re so entwined that they accept government and intellectual positions as true. Legitimacy of technocratic experts. In technocratic discourse, decision-making is the responsibility of scientific and technological experts; the emphasis is on two characteristics: efficiency and effectiveness (Akin, 1977; Bryld, 2000; Schultz, 2002). The key to successful development is an efficient state (Bryld, 2000, p. 701). In terms of effect on ideology, technology was largely underestimated by Marx, but has since been identified as a determinant in the hegemonic power of a capitalistic ideology (Eyerman & Shipway, 1981). Technocratic legitimacy is largely brought about by the rationalization of production in a capitalist economy. In a technological society, class conflict still exists, but it is neutralized by the illusion that 15

25 technology can minimize class differences through the monetary and consumer rewards that laborers achieve in a technical economy. Right and ability of authorized agencies to manage conflict and make the necessary reforms. Hegemony and the stability of social order presupposes the ability of the elite to manage and adapt to conflict as well as dissipate dissent (Eagleton, 1991; Kebede, 2005). In a hegemonic society, the role of the government becomes increasingly important; it becomes the arbiter of different social groups (Kebede, 2005, p. 84). The government is the authorized agency to resolve conflict and implement social reforms. At times, social movements arise as a collective action that challenges the established power. Eyerman and Jamison (1991) define social movements as cognitive praxis from where new knowledge originates (p. 48). For Gramsci (1971), a social movement needs to be a counter-hegemony in order to be transformative. A counter-hegemony must break down hegemonic society to the point where consent can no longer be maintained (Kebede, 2005). For the hegemonic society to prevail, counter-hegemonic social movements must be explained and eliminated within the hegemonic framework or aspects must be worked into the dominant ideology (see subsequent discussion of emergent culture). In a hegemonic society, the government has the only authority to elicit change. Gamson, Fireman and Rytina (1982) refer to such authority in terms of legitimizing frames. A legitimizing frame is a seemingly innocuous principle by which people abide because it helps to maintain social order. The authors use the example of the principle: first come, first serve. This principle is a mechanism to maintain social order in a service situation. People abide by this rule because it results in a collective benefit. The idea is rational, fair and stipulates an 16

26 efficient way of providing service. Legitimizing frames are often taken-for-granted, which allows the authority (in this case, the government) to regulate without conflict. When a legitimizing frame is called into question, it is done so using an injustice frame. According to Gamson et al. (1982) an injustice frame is an interpretation of what is happening that supports the conclusion that an authority system is violating the shared moral principles of the participants (p. 123). An injustice frame provides a reason for noncompliance with the original legitimizing frame. Furthermore, a reframing act goes beyond providing a reason for individual noncompliance. It is any discourse or action that calls for the collective adoption of the injustice frame. There are two types of reframing acts: attention calling and context setting. Attention calling refers to discourse or action that draws attention to questionable conduct of an authority. Context-setting discourse or action identifies what is wrong with the authority s conduct. Legitimizing frames can be considered hegemonic, while injustice frames and reframing acts are counterhegemonic. Legitimizing frames consist of language that support the government s right to regulate or reform. In addition to legitimizing frames themselves, these frames are supported by reliance on government sources for information. Injustice frames use language that states the government is violating the rights of citizens. Legitimacy of the social order secured and defined by the dominant elites. The Gramscian (hegemonic) view of social order, as developed from Marxism, postulates three fundamental properties: (1) a dominant, ruling class exists that has access to cultural and ideological institutions, and such access is unavailable to the public; (2) discourse within cultural institutions is limited to reflect dominant views; and (3) this is reflected in the public belief 17

27 system (Sallach, 1974). In their analysis of hegemonic order, Bloom and Dallyn (2011) contend that social order is maintained and strengthened through the allowance of certain pluralisms. The authors agree that this appears paradoxical because it would ostensibly seem as though pluralism would eliminate social order. However, by allowing competing views to exist, social order (and the status quo) is maintained. There are three pluralistic concepts that function to produce, and reproduce, social order: antagonism, undecidability, and heterogeneity. Antagonisms are challenges to current social and political discourses (Bloom & Dallyn, 2011; Thomassen, 2005). While it may sound like these oppositions dismantle social order, their purpose in maintaining social order is to set boundaries; antagonisms structure where, how and over what issues debate is legitimately allowed and encountered (Bloom & Dallyn, 2011, p. 62). Antagonisms allow competing interests to exist, but the other two concepts associated with pluralism are more involved in creating the conditions for hegemony to exist (Bloom & Dallyn, 2011; Thomassen, 2005). Undecidability refers to issues that are unresolvable and infinitely debatable (Bloom & Dallyn, 2011; Thomassen, 2005). Bloom and Dallyn (2011) explain this concept using the War on Terror. In this case, the debate revolves around the concepts of liberty and security. Some decisions must be made, like whether to invade Iraq. The debate around liberty and security, however, remains at the forefront, undecided. At what point does the need for security begin to infringe on liberty? Should we give up some liberties in order to strengthen security? These questions can never be fully answered, which maintains its legitimacy in socio-political discourse. The final concept, heterogeneity, which refers to the excess of meaning (multiple political views and choices), helps to foster undecidability (Bloom & Dallyn, 2011; Thomassen, 18

28 2005). Heterogeneity promises the possibility of modification and change, but concurrently never allows that change to come to fruition (Bloom & Dallyn, p. 65). The legitimacy of the social order as secured by dominant elites is also strengthened by hegemonic frames that disparage social movements. Previous research has identified several such frames. The first three frames make up the public nuisance paradigm (Di Cicco, 2010); the final six social movement frames similarly work together to admonish social movements and eliminate any attempt at social change. Public nuisance paradigm. In addition to Gitlin s (2003) principles mentioned above, there are several social movement frames that have been detected in previous research. Di Cicco (2010) posited the public nuisance paradigm in regard to political protests. The theory suggests that there are three themes present in news coverage that work to dismiss the protest: protests are bothersome, impotent, and unpatriotic. Protests are bothersome because the act of holding one interferes with everyday life. They are impotent because there is no merit to the protest and no change will come of it. Finally, they are unpatriotic because they hurt the nation and disregard freedoms. These frames are measured by the presence or absence of certain nuisance language (Di Cicco, 2010). The bothersome frame involves language of images that suggests the protest interrupts citizens daily routines. The impotent frame is found in language that indicates the protest will not bring change. Coverage may include that the protest is a waste of time or that the public is not paying it any attention. The unpatriotic frame indicates that the protestors are ungrateful for the freedoms they possess in America. That is, the only reason they can even protest is because of the American political system. 19

29 Other movement frames. Several other frames have been identified in previous coverage of social movements (Gitlin, 2003). Trivialization frames include making light of movement characteristics, such as language and goals. Polarization frames emphasize counterdemonstrations and extremists. Marginalization frames show demonstrators as deviant. Some of these frames focus on internal dissention or demonstration violence. Finally, quotation marks are used to delegitimize actions of the movement. Putting quotation marks around words like movement or protest helps to trivialize the social movement and its message. The value of individualism as a measure of social existence. There are several factors that suggest the United States is becoming an increasingly individualistic society. First, is the decline of a Social Democracy, where the state emphasizes and takes responsibility for the social and economic well-being of its citizens, in favor of increased household consumerism and then, individual consumerism (Johnson, 2007, p. 98). Another factor that suggests the U.S. is becoming increasingly individualistic is the individual s desire to be successful and labor specialization (Hamamura, 2012). In an individualistic society, people tend to value selfimprovement over characteristics like social harmony, as in collectivist societies. Gitlin (2003) provides evidence of individualism in the media. Large movements have been covered in the media not as collectives, but instead through their outspoken and individualistic leaders. In their coverage of anti-war protests, the media successfully elevated charismatic leaders of the movement to celebrity status. Many of these leaders accepted this celebrity status and responded by amplifying their rhetoric and making themselves readily available to the media. Gitlin (2003) illustrates several examples where the leader s desire to make history is due to the prevailing individualism of American culture (p. 153). 20

30 Gitlin (2003) provides an abundance of historical examples of hegemonic principles in the media, but he does not attempt to quantify these principles in the fourth estate, and there is no scholarship determining whether these principles are evident in the fifth estate as well. Gitlin s (2003) hegemonic principles along with previously identified social movement frames provide a conceptual framework with which to begin the quantitative exploration of hegemony in the media. In the case of Occupy Wall Street, several media frames are especially helpful: private control of commodity production; the right of authorized agencies to manage conflict and make reforms; the social order secured by dominant elites, and the disorder associated with social movements. Media Practices Media practices contribute to the hegemony of the fourth estate. Media content results from a number of influences. Some of these influences can be attributed to the impact of media practices or routines, which are repeated practices that media workers use while doing their jobs (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Such practices can help advance hegemonic ideology through the aforementioned hegemonic principles; these include frames, journalistic routines, and news values (Gans, 1979; Gitlin, 2003, Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). In communication research, the term framing originates from photography and cinematography and refers to the way a photographer would angle the camera to get the desired perspective (McCombs & Ghanem, 2003). Just as a photographer can angle the camera to alter the perspective, a journalist can angle a story to achieve a certain perspective. In communication textual research, it refers to a technique that journalists can use, often subconsciously, to present a story to their audience (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). This technique can be an efficient way 21

31 to write stories because it allows the journalist to quickly classify information (Scheufele, 2000). By putting a frame, or perspective, on a story, journalists can organize the information effectively while also making the information easier for the audience to process, although the journalist is often unaware they are doing so. Since frames create an organization for journalists and their audience, the news frames that journalists choose can also have a substantial effect on how an audience understands a story. (Gitlin, 2003; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). There are two salient approaches to framing research: frame setting and frame building. Frame setting researchers are concerned with the salience of the attributes that characterize a particular issue (Scheufele, 1999) and the effects they have on the audience (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). Frame setting researchers specifically use media frames as the independent variable and audience frames as the dependent variable (Scheufele & Scheufele, 2010). That is, the theoretical notion in frame setting is that audience members will perceive more accessible frames as more important because they are easier to remember, therefore giving them more weight when processing the information (Scheufele, 1999). There are four associations that determine the power of a frame to influence its audience: promoting a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation for the item described (Entman, 1993). The most effective frames use all of them (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009), and frame setting is concerned with the transmission of these frames (Scheufele, 1999). It is important to understand the concept of frame setting within framing research, but the current study focuses on the second approach: frame building. Frame building is the process in which frames are constructed and occurs within the context of several factors, including journalistic norms and routines (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 22

32 2009). According to Van Gorp (2010), frame building in news media is at its core a process in which cultural values and norms are reproduced (p. 88). Contrary to frame setting, where the independent variable is media frames and the dependent variable is audience responses, frame building research is concerned with the factors that influence media frames (Scheufele, 1999). Frame building refers to the idea of linking frames in social discourse as independent variables to media frames as dependent variables (Scheufele & Scheufele, 2010, p. 113). Frame building research investigates the process of how frames in society get represented as frames in media content. Frame building is mostly concerned with how media frames are established and how they get adopted (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). Media frames do not exist in a vacuum; any resulting frames can be attributed to such influences as: social norms and values, external pressures, organizational pressures and constraints, professional routines, and the ideology of journalists (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). I will discuss each briefly. The first two influences originate from outside the media organization. The influence of social norms and values is related to the concept of ideology in that ideology is a belief system that is shaped by the culture of a society. In framing, journalists use cultural themes stemming from norms and values to establish a perspective with which the audience is familiar (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Norms and values can influence frames in a social, ideological sense, which is an external influence, but there are also external pressures from specific groups outside of media organizations that can impact the framing of a story (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996; Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). Such external groups can include: governmental bureaucracies, interest groups or corporations (Scheufele, 1999). These groups have their own agendas and journalists rely on the information given from representatives of 23

33 these groups; these agendas can manifest in media frames. Frames are affected by the source selected by (or available to) the journalist; these sources may give information that supports their group s agenda (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). The next set of influences occurs within the media industry. Journalistic frames can be affected by organizational factors, which reflect more than just the journalists covering a story (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). Editors also play a role in the framing process (Gitlin, 2003) because they often decide what should be covered and the treatment and placement of the resulting story, while journalists decide what to cover at the scene. Editors and journalists are responsible for the daily production of news and are mostly given autonomy in these activities (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996; Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). The maintenance of the industry as a whole is ultimately the responsibility of media owners and managers (Gitlin, 2003). Although their control is often inconspicuous, owners and managers have been responsible for the censorship or reframing of news that could harm the company or oppose the interests of the dominant elite. Gitlin (2003) documents examples such as the moments after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. s assassination and during Nixon s election, and inauguration. In a content analysis of newspapers, Harcup and O Neill (2001) observed that the news organization s own agenda was often reflected. Newspapers tended to publish stories that were in line with their own interests, such as publishing stories that support commercial interests of the organization s owners. Professional routines that affect frame building can advance hegemonic ideology (Gitlin, 2003; Scheufele, 2000). Editors often assign reporters to a specific beat, where they rely on official sources who are not neutral. As stated previously, these sources represent the agenda of 24

34 the organization for which they are employed (Gitlin, 2003). The resulting stories can also represent this agenda. The stories rely on the information from sources, but the individual characteristics of a journalist can also affect the frame of a story (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996; Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). The characteristics of journalists that may influence the resulting frames include demographic characteristics, such as gender, race, and educational background, as well as personal values and beliefs (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Journalists beliefs are generally congruent with those of most Americans: they value such things as family, friendships and economic prosperity (Gans, 1979; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Gans (1979) identified several additional journalistic values, which have also been identified as non-traditional news values (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996; Willis, 2007). Non-traditional news values are culture-based and reflect the inherent ideology of society: ethnocentrism, responsible capitalism, altruistic democracy, leadership, order, smalltown pastoralism, moderatism, and rugged individualism (Gans, 1979; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996; Willis, 2007). These non-traditional news values correspond to Gitlin s (2003) core hegemonic principles. Traditional news values, on the other hand, help editors and producers decide what counts as news. They focus on the ability to cover an event and potential reader interest as well as criteria such as timeliness, proximity, uniqueness and human interest (Willis, 2007). Furthermore, Lee (2009) found evidence to support that news values, both traditional and non-traditional, directly and indirectly affected audience attention. The institution of mass media has long been theorized to be a hegemonic entity, which people rely on for information and communication with the outside world (Artz, 2006; Gitlin, 2003; Grossberg, 1984; Katz et al., 1973; McQuail et al., 1972; Rubin, 2009). As a hegemonic 25

35 institution, it aids in the process of manufacturing consent and maintaining the status quo (Artz, 2006; Gitlin, 2003; Herman & Chomsky, 2002; Lewis, 1999a), which is perpetuated through news routines, framing, and other media practices (Gitlin, 2003; Scheufele, 2000; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). The fourth estate, or traditional news, operates within an intricate, rational system of dissemination. The fifth estate, however, is free from such corporate constraints. The Fifth Estate The idea of estates originated in feudal societies as estates of the realm (Dutton, 2009, p. 1). The traditional estates were the clergy, nobility, commons, and press as the first, second, third and fourth, respectively. The modern equivalents include public intellectuals, economic elite, government and mass media. In the United States, the first three estates are often linked to the judicial, legislative and executive branches. This separation of powers is in place to provide a system of checks and balances, where no one branch has complete power. The mass media is considered the fourth estate, which keeps watch over the three former estates (Dutton, 2009). Over time, the fourth estate has remained the press, but the range of channels (radio, television, etc.) through which the press disseminates information has changed. Originally, the fourth estate was seen as a free press in which journalists were free to challenge the decisions of other estates, but recently, the public s awareness of economic and political influences on the press has hurt the fourth estate s credibility (Newman & Scott, 2005). The fourth estate has traditionally been the only entity to report on the activities of the first three, but a new fifth estate has emerged with the potential to challenge the fourth. The fifth estate consists of networked individuals via the internet as well as other information and communication technologies (Dutton, 2009). There is general consensus in the literature that the 26

36 fifth estate comprises a network of individual bloggers (Ward & Cahill, 2007). A blog is a personal webpage, which allows for multiple entries by a user or users. The newest entries appear at the top of the webpage (Quiggin, 2006). There are several crucial differences between blogs and news websites associated with traditional media. Basically, ordinary people can use them. They require no capital to start and no special skills to publish. So, in essence, anyone can publish anything they want. There are two characteristics that set the fifth estate apart from its predecessor: (1) the ability to improve communicative power of individuals and institutions through networks, and (2) the ability to enable the creation of networks of individuals which have a public, social benefit (Dutton, 2009, p. 3). Since the fifth estate exists online, and the cost to publish is low, the fifth estate has the potential to foster ideas and voices independent of corporate interests. However, although the corporate restraints do not exist in the fifth estate, fifth estate networks still exist within American culture, making it possible for them to be participatory in hegemony. The question remains whether the fifth estate has become conscious of hegemony and dominant ideology. Still, if the fifth estate has become conscious, the ability of the dominant ideology to manage the fifth estate could still be an issue. Communication from the fifth estate has been criticized by the fourth estate on the basis of the quality of information. Those involved with the traditional media, including journalists, don t like being challenged (Jordan, 2007). In response to the fifth estate, which publishes almost exclusively online, news professionals criticized online publishing for their lack of gatekeeping and quality of the publication (Jordan, 2007), but there have been efforts by the Media Bloggers Association, an association that supports citizen journalism, to encourage bloggers to adhere to a 27

37 code of conduct similar to those of mainstream journalists (Ward & Cahill, 2007). There does remain some concern about various aspects of online publications, such as ethical practices. News professionals helped solidify these concerns. They could not stop the dissemination of online publishing by alternative news media, but they were successful in undermining the consumer s confidence in such publications (Jordan, 2007). However, the fifth estate has fought back by challenging the accuracy of traditional news media (Hayes, 2008). The low cost of entry in the fifth estate gives citizens an arena in which to challenge the news agenda of traditional media. Bloggers have an unprecedented access to the means of publication and have used this opportunity to reshape political news, which differs from print and online news produced by traditional news outlets (Ward & Cahill, 2007). Amateur journalists have the ability to access resources that were once limited to professional journalists and to publish their thoughts and ideas. To further accessibility, the development of Web 2.0 applications has simplified the process of publishing on the web. Ultimately, blogs combine to create a new medium and to alter a longstanding, one-way relationship between news producers and consumers (p. 2). Blogging in the United States In 2006, 12-million American adults reported that they kept a blog, and 57 million reported reading blogs (Lenhart & Fox, 2006). In some states, these bloggers have been afforded the same rights as traditional journalists (Ward & Cahill, 2007). Although they have the same rights, bloggers do not have to adhere to the same practices as traditional journalists. Traditional journalists increasingly have to compete in the same arena as bloggers, as more people are going online for their news (Jordan, 2007). However, most are not exploring the range of options that 28

38 the internet has to offer. Of the people that do go online for news, 57% report relying on just two to five sites ( Most Online News, 2010). This is consistent with the number of blogs that receive a large readership from the American public (Ward & Cahill, 2007). Despite the fact that many blogs go unread by the majority of Americans, the blogosphere is still considered the fifth estate (Jordan, 2007). This is less for the audience they command and more for the role they play. The readership of traditional online news sources is much greater than the readership of even the top blogs (Newman, Fletcher, Levy, & Nielsen, 2016; Stroud, 2008). Like journalists of the fourth estate, bloggers in the United States enjoy some of the same benefits. The Media Bloggers Association (MBA), which boasts over 1,000 members, employs a code of conduct similar to that of professional journalists (Ward & Cahill, 2007). In some states, bloggers even enjoy rights given to professionals, like source protection. Some bloggers have been able to obtain press credentials, and some have been hired in roles equivalent to press secretaries. Bloggers whose credentials rival those of the traditional press may be few and far between. In a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 84% of bloggers reported that their blogging was a hobby or just something I do (Lenhart & Fox, 2006). Fifty-two percent blog mostly for themselves and not for an audience. Only 32% of bloggers reported writing mostly for their audience. Politics and government blogs are second behind my life and experiences as a topic for blogs, with only 11% of bloggers reporting politics or government as the main focus. Most bloggers don t consider themselves journalists (65%), but many (56%) spend time verifying facts. How they verify these facts remains a question. 29

39 Blogs still remain competitive in the field of political analysis (Quiggin, 2006), but the size of the readership of these blogs is still lacking (Newman et al., 2016; Stroud, 2008). The audience for blogs is not distributed evenly, with the concentration of readers going to a very small amount of A-list bloggers (Ward & Cahill, 2007). B-listers enjoy a moderate amount of readers, but most bloggers have virtually no readers at all. Many blogs fail because of lack of readership. Even though there is the potential to reach a mass audience with little cost, many fail to actually attract that readership. Many of those who do attract a readership are those that blog about political and cultural controversies (Quiggin, 2006). Many blogs receive readership from Google searches, but sometimes Google will send readers to old or archive posts. This can frustrate a potential audience and cause them to give up, which contributes to the small audience of some blogs. One characteristic of blogging that helps with readership is that it can be a collaborative experience. The blogosphere echoes the public sphere as an interconnected, collective enterprise even without the formal structure of traditional media (Ward & Cahill, 2007). One way in which blogs are collaborative is through the comments and trackbacks that are unique to blogs and invite public participation (Quiggin, 2006). Despite the fact that blogs are collaborative, without corporate backing many still fail to garner the support necessary to compete with mainstream media. Although bloggers can cut down on gatekeeping practices by delivering news directly to the people, many rely on linking to mainstream sources in order to gain and keep readership (Cooper, 2006). This calls into question the characteristics of blogs compared to the output of the fourth estate. 30

40 Bloggers question traditional media s agenda-setting and gatekeeping practices (Cooper, 2006). They question the amount of coverage some stories get and the absence of others. In particular, they can keep issues alive after traditional media outlets have dropped them. In doing this, bloggers can wear down the gatekeeping practices of traditional media, which includes the participation of corporate and government entities (Ward & Cahill, 2007). The blogosphere can set its own agenda. Bloggers decide which topics to comment on (gatekeeping) and how much to say about them (agenda-setting) [sic] (Cooper, 2006, p. 129). This creates an alternate agenda. The blogosphere operates differently than traditional media, and its characteristics reflect this. Readership is concentrated among a relatively small number of blogs, and many of these blogs use mainstream media as a jumping off point and even provide a hyperlink to the original story (Cooper, 2006). So, blogs, at least the ones with a substantial audience, may not read much differently from traditional media. As stated previously, research suggests that media is a hegemonic institution and the credibility of the fourth estate has been brought into question because of the exposure of political and economic influences. Media practices influence media frames, which can reinforce hegemonic ideology in text. Although there has been much theoretical research on how media practices influence the construction of frames, there is a lack of empirical evidence (Scheufele, 1999). Traditional media have been identified as an institution that disseminates hegemonic ideology. This outcome is made possible by such processes as manufacturing consent and media routines. However, this has primarily been supported with qualitative evidence or historical case studies and lacks quantitative support. In contrast to traditional media, output from the fifth 31

41 estate has the potential to foster voices and ideas that are independent of hegemonic pressures. The purpose of this study is to provide quantitative evidence of hegemonic media frames in traditional media and to explore whether blogs of the fifth estate differ from the hegemony of the fourth estate. In order to accomplish this, the current study will focus on Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street is an appropriate topic for two reasons: the movement focuses on social and economic inequality, and it has acquired both traditional and online media attention. Occupy Wall Street The Occupy movement is a social reform movement that began with a series of demonstrations in Wall Street s financial district on September 17, 2011 ( About, n.d.; Occupy Wall Street, n.d.; Quick Facts, 2012). There are several characteristics that make the Occupy movement an appropriate subject for the current study: (1) the aims of the movement, (2) potential to be a counter-hegemony (potential to breakdown public consent), (3) origin via the internet, and (4) coverage by mainstream media. Although the Occupy movement has multiple objectives, the main focus targets reconciliation of social and financial inequalities ( About, n.d.; Liberty Square Blueprint, n.d.; Occupy Wall Street, n.d.). The movement slogan, we are the 99%, refers to the gap in wealth between the wealthiest 1% of the population and everyone else ( About, n.d.). The few discernible aims of the movement reflect the slogan: better jobs, redistribution of income, bank reform, and political reform concerning corporate influence ( About, n.d.; Lowenstein, 2011). These aims, especially political reform, give the movement the potential to be counterhegemonic. 32

42 The purpose of a social movement is to disorganize consent and organize dissent, but a counter-hegemony does this and more (Carroll & Ratner, 1996). According to Gramsci (1971), a counter-hegemony challenges ideology, is transformative, and has the potential to reform the hegemonic system. The Occupy movement s third characteristic, origin via the internet, has the potential to help in this regard as the internet provides an inexpensive platform with which to organize dissent. In contrast to earlier social movements, the Occupy movement has the advantage of using the internet and fifth estate to organize dissent. Occupy Wall Street was originally promoted via the Adbusters Foundation blog ( #OCCUPYWALLSTREET, 2011; Occupy Wall Street, n.d.; Timeline of Occupy, n.d.). The Adbusters Foundation is a not-for-profit social activist organization, ( About Adbusters, n.d.), potentially free of hegemonic influence. By promoting via the internet, the Occupy movement has a conceivable opportunity to avoid corporate influence because of the low cost to publish and create networks. The last characteristic that makes the Occupy movement an appropriate subject for this study is its mainstream media coverage. Mainstream coverage came two days after the original September 17 th demonstration in Zuccotti Park ( Quick Facts, 2012; Timeline of Occupy, n.d.). Full coverage came by the end of the week. Coverage by mainstream media as well as promotion on the internet allow for hegemonic comparison of the fourth and fifth estates. Framing Research on Occupy Wall Street Two quantitative studies have explored social movement and protest frames in news coverage of Occupy Wall Street. Gottlieb (2015) conducted a longitudinal content analysis of Occupy Wall Street coverage, identifying passages as either conflict, focusing on the conflict 33

43 between protesters and institutional actors, or economic, substantive frames about the protest. Not only did Gottlieb find that there was more news coverage when there were more arrests, but journalists tended to focus on the conflict rather than economic issues. Although there was evidence of economic frames, Gottlieb is ambiguous in his definition of them, simply saying that the frames were of substantive matters, especially the grievances of protesters (p. 5). Still, the protests received more media coverage when there was conflict. Xu (2013) measured the presence of six framing devices based on previous protest literature, including Gitlin (2003). The six frames: lawlessness (violence), show (performance and theatrics), ineffective goals, public disapproval, and official sources (quotes by law enforcement and government officials), and negative impact, when present, tended to contribute to an overall negative tone of the article. The frames show, ineffective goals, and lawlessness explained less of the overall negative tone of an article than public disapproval and negative impact, but all of these frames add to the view of protesters as extremists. Both studies provide evidence that protesters are framed as contumacious in the news. One limitation that both studies share is their reliance on the LexisNexis database for news articles. This database does not include articles that only appear online, making it an unusable sample for the comparison of online news. Hypotheses and Research Questions Occupy Wall Street is a series of demonstrations, which address the influence of corporations on the democratic processes ("About," n.d., para. 2). The coverage of these events provide a way to investigate hegemonic frames in the fourth and fifth estates. According to Gitlin (2003) the more closely a movement s concerns and values align with those of the elite, the more 34

44 likely they will be incorporated in the prevailing news frames (p. 284). However, reform movements such as Occupy Wall Street, which Gitlin (2003) might describe as revolutionary, can achieve media standing only as deviants (p. 286), which makes this movement the ideal issue with which to explore hegemony in the media. Based on the current literature on hegemony in the fourth estate, the following two hypotheses are proposed: H1: Hegemonic frames will be evident in traditional news articles (i.e. fourth estate) about Occupy Wall Street. H2: Hegemonic frames will be evident in blogs from traditional news outlets (i.e. fourth estate) about Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street has a unique possible advantage over other major social movements in that it comes at a time when protesters have access to the fifth estate to promote their message (Nelson, 2011). So, this movement also provides an excellent vehicle through which to explore hegemony in the fifth estate. I have five research questions aimed at the exploration of the notion of whether hegemonic frames or counterhegemonic frames are evident in the fifth estate: RQ1: Are hegemonic frames evident in fifth estate blogs about Occupy Wall Street? RQ2: Are hegemonic frames more evident in news articles and blogs from the fourth estate than in the fifth estate blogs? RQ3: Are counterhegemonic frames evident in the fourth and fifth estates? RQ4: Are counterhegemonic frames more evident in the fifth estate blogs than the news articles and blogs of the fourth estate? RQ5: If differences exist between the types of frames from the fifth estate and the fourth estate, what are those differences? 35

45 There is another issue that could affect framing of blogs of the fifth estate. One argument to support the existence of hegemonic ideology in traditional news is reporters reliance on sources representing elite interests (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Additionally, many blogs use content from mainstream media sites (Cooper, 2006). I have one hypothesis and two research questions regarding the sources quoted in articles and blogs: H3: Elite sources (i.e. government and corporate representatives) are used to inform traditional news articles covering Occupy Wall Street. RQ6: What types of sources are used to inform fourth and fifth estate blogs about Occupy Wall Street? RQ7: How are frames attributed to sources among the types of publications of the fourth and fifth estates? 36

46 CHAPTER THREE: METHOD To investigate frames in media coverage of Occupy Wall Street, this content analysis examined coverage from the fourth and fifth estates. Coverage from the fourth estate includes online news articles and blogs from traditional newspaper organizations, and coverage from the fifth estate includes blogs from non-traditional news sources. Data Newspaper selection was based on the digital circulation for the time period leading up to Occupy Wall Street. The top two online newspapers were The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and the New York Times (NYT) ( The top 25, 2011). Since both newspapers have blogs in addition to online news articles, they were included as traditional news sources. For the fifth-estate blogs, I used Adbusters, the blog that originally advertised the September 17 demonstration and subsequently reported on and for the movement ( #OCCUPYWALLSTREET, 2011; Timeline of Occupy, n.d.). I also used Reader Supported News (RSN), an online news source, which is not supported by advertising money or any outside investors (Ash, 2009). It is fully supported by reader contributions but is not a non-profit, therefore contributions are not tax deductible and there is no board of directors. Sample Each article or blog constitutes the unit of analysis. My sample consists of articles and blogs on the subject of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) from its inception on September 17, 2011 through December 17, 2011, in which there was an influx of news on the topic. All articles and blogs over the three-month time period were collected from each source, and a spreadsheet was created for each. The articles and blogs were listed on the spreadsheets in chronological order. A 37

47 random sample was drawn from the collective spreadsheets, and was constrained to ensure that each estate category was represented by an equal number of units of analysis. The final sample totaled 90, with 15 units of analysis from each of the following categories: The Wall Street Journal articles (fourth estate), The New York Times articles (fourth estate), The Wall Street Journal blogs (fourth estate), The New York Times blogs (fourth estate), Adbusters blogs (fifth estate), and Reader Supported News (fifth estate). From the final sample, several rounds of subsamples were drawn for distribution to the coders. The articles were distributed to Coders in rounds: one round of ten, one round of twenty, and two rounds of thirty. This allowed for norming between early samples (see Coding section), it prevented coder fatigue, and it allowed the estate groups to be randomly assigned to the coders. For example, the first round of ten comprised: two WSJ articles, two WSJ blogs, two NYT blogs, and four RSN blogs, which were presented to the coders in this order: RSN, RSN, WSJB, WSJB, WSJA, WSJA, RSN, NYTB, RSN and NYTB. Measurement Each of the variables examined in this study are described in detail in the sections below. The variables are measured using a combination of indicators, represented by questions in the coding sheet (see Appendix B). Following the detailed descriptions, a summary of the variables, including title, description, and level of measurement, can be seen in Table 1. Estates/Type of Publication Since the goal of this research is to identify hegemonic frames in the fourth estate, composed of the press (Dutton, 2009), and possible hegemonic frames in the fifth, blogs from 38

48 publications free of corporate structure (Cooper, 2006), the first independent variable will be the estate/type of publication: fourth-estate news article, fourth-estate blog, fifth-estate blog. Each article and blog was measured nominally, and given a code of one, two, or three: one for traditional news articles (NYT and WSJ), two for blogs from traditional news outlets (NYT and WSJ), and three for blogs from the fifth estate (Adbusters and RSN). Due to the ideological nature of this analysis, the estate and publication of the article or blog was blinded in order to reduce potential coder bias. Each article or blog was stripped of identifying information and assigned a number to ensure that the coders were unaware of its origin (see Sampling section). Sources and Attributions Previous social movements have been trivialized in traditional media due to reporters reliance on statements from government officials and other authorities (Gitlin, 2003). In addition to the types of publication described above, two more independent variables address sources used or quoted in the articles and blogs. The first variable indicates whether the source is representative of the elite class (i.e., government or corporate sources), or is non-elite (OWS participants, OWS supporters, OWS opposition, or citizens who do not identify as supporters or opposition). For another variable, coders determined whether frames came from a primary source, by either a direct quote of the source or by an attribution to the source from the journalist, or if the frames came from the journalists own text with no attribution to a source. Sources. Elite sources, OWS participants, OWS supporters, OWS opposition, and citizens were originally each measured as a ratio-level variable, and counted within each article or blog by the individual coders. Later, to increase interrater reliability, the sources were 39

49 collapsed into dichotomous variables, marking each source group as present or absent from the article or blog (see the Interrater Reliability section). Attribution. To identify attribution of frames, I used three nominal, dichotomous variables. For each frame that existed in an article or blog, coders identified whether the frame came from a primary source (direct quote), a secondary source (attribution), or was the journalists own words (in-text). Since each source was treated separately, more than one could be credited. Hegemonic and Counterhegemonic Frames Gitlin (2003) posited that news routines are skewed toward representing hegemonic principles. Frames were measured dichotomously present or absent based on a series of questions related to each frame (see Codebook section and Appendix A). The frames were explained to each of the coders, but the coders were not introduced to the concepts of hegemony, hegemonic frames, or counterhegemonic frames. Gitlin posited six hegemonic principles; for the purpose of the study, I investigated three that are appropriate for the coverage of Occupy Wall Street. Legitimacy of private control of commodity production. Part of a hegemonic ideology is the legitimacy of the private control of commodity production. This belief helps to maintain the capitalist elite class. In today s society, products range from tangible items to knowledge and communication (Poster, 1990). Corporate owners that control the production and distribution of such items or discourse are legitimized by this principle. This frame presents capitalism as the only legitimate economic system, and presents any competing economic systems as illegitimate or not viable. In terms of Occupy Wall Street, any 40

50 legitimate solution to social and economic inequality must lie within the capitalist economic system. This frame will be measured through the presence or absence of terminology that supports capitalism as the only legitimate economic system. For example, during the Vietnam War protests, the media emphasized the presence of communists, which helped to demonize the movement (Gitlin, 2003). The term communism was again used during the Cold War to help legitimize U.S. national defense (De Genova, 2007). With the end of the Cold War, perhaps a more current opposition to capitalist ideology is socialism. This frame will measure the use of terms like socialism to trivialize the Occupy Wall Street movement. Right and ability of authorized agencies to manage conflict and make necessary reforms. In a hegemonic society, the elite must maintain social order as well as adapt to conflict and eliminate dissent (Eagleton, 1991; Kebede, 2005). In order for a social movement to be effective, it must be a counter-hegemony, which breaks down society so that the status quo can no longer be maintained (Gramsci, 1971; Kebede, 2005). To prevent such effective social movements, authorization for change lies solely within a society s government. The hegemonic frame will be measured through the presence of legitimizing frames, which are phrases that reinforce social order, practices and norms (Gamson et al., 1982). The principle, first come, first serve, is an example of a legitimizing frame. Legitimacy of the social order secured and defined by the dominant elites. Bloom and Dallyn (2011) contend that the existence of pluralisms help to secure the current social order as defined by the elite class. This is because competing views are allowed to exist, which seems fair. Multiple competing views actually help to further muddle any possible alternative to the 41

51 current situation, which helps to maintain the status quo and allows the elite ideology to persist. The three pluralistic concepts that Bloom and Dallyn describe are antagonism, undecidability, and heterogeneity. In the context of this study, the three are defined as follows: Antagonisms are challenges to the current social and political discourse that defines where, how and over what issues debate will take place. Media coverage alone can be antagonism. Undecidability is a characteristic of a concept or set of concepts that impedes the ability to resolve the true issue. In the case of Occupy Wall Street, the issue is economic inequality (About, n.d.). Heterogeneity refers to multiple political views and possible reforms, the sheer number of which can render a solution impossible; thus, maintaining the status quo. Undecidability and heterogeneity are visible in the absence of a concrete solution to the problem of inequality and in the number of tentative solutions. In addition, any viable solutions reported come from authority sources: government officials and corporate elite. This frame will be measured through the presence of pluralisms, specifically the existence of multiple solutions to the issue of economic inequality. An example is partisan legislation that will not be endorsed by a majority. Public nuisance paradigm. In addition to pluralisms, there are several frames that disparage social movements, which also work to legitimize elite social order. Di Cicco (2010) posited the public nuisance paradigm in regard to political protests. The paradigm suggests that there are three themes present in news coverage that work to dismiss the protest: protests are bothersome, impotent, and unpatriotic. Protests are bothersome because the act of holding one interferes with everyday life. They are impotent because there is no merit to the protest and no 42

52 change will come of it. Finally, they are unpatriotic because they hurt the nation and disregard freedoms. These frames are measured by the presence or absence of certain nuisance language. The bothersome frame appears in content that suggests an annoyance is caused by the protest that interferes with citizens daily routines. The impotent frame is found in language that indicates the protest will not bring change. Coverage may include that the protest is a waste of time or that people are not paying it any attention. The unpatriotic frame indicates that the protestors are ungrateful for the freedoms they possess in America. That is, the only reason they can even protest is because of the American political system. Other movement frames. Gitlin (2003) identified several other frames in previous coverage of social movements. Coders will be looking for the presence of the following types of coverage: downplay of any aspect of the movement, including movement language and goals; emphasis on counterdemonstrations and extremists; deviant behavior by and arrests of protestors, mentions of disagreements within the movement and internal conflict; violent behavior by protesters; quotation marks used to delegitimize actions of the movement. 43

53 Table 1. Overview of Variables and Levels of Measurement Title Estate/Type of Publication Sources Elite Non-Elite Source Attributions Direct quote Attribution Text Hegemonic Frames Counterhegemonic Frames Description Publications within the fourth and fifth estates: fourthestate news articles, fourth-estate blogs, fifth-estate blogs Corporate or government sources: elected officials, agency spokespeople, CEOs, chairpersons, public affairs spokespeople, etc. Citizens unaffiliated or not speaking for a corporate or government agency: Occupy participants, supporters, Occupy opposition, citizens not affiliated with the movement. Frames that are present within a source s words in quotations. Frames that are present in text that is credited to a source. Frames that are present in the reporter s own words, not attributed to a source. Frames that represent Gitlin s (2003) hegemonic principles and other movement frames. Frames that challenge a hegemonic principle and call into question a government or corporate action. Level of Measurement Nominal (3-category) Nominal (present/absent) Nominal (present/absent) Nominal (present/absent) Nominal (present/absent) Codebook A codebook and coding sheet were developed for the coding process. Coders received a codebook, one coding sheet per blog/article, and a printed version of the blogs/articles. The codebook began with a brief introduction to an abbreviated purpose of this study, which included information about social movements, but not hegemony. A short description on frames followed 44

54 the introduction, and then directions on how to go about coding each article, complete with definitions and abbreviations. (All articles and blogs were referred to as articles throughout the coding process.) At the end of the codebook, each of the frames was defined and described in terms of a newspaper article (see Appendix A). The coding sheets mirrored the layout of the variables and frames in the codebook, so coders could refer back to the codebook as necessary during the coding process (See Appendix B). Each frame comprised one or more indicators, which were measured using questions related to the frame to help the coders identify whether the frame was present or absent. Coders wrote the article s identification number on each coding sheet, so each coding sheet could be matched with the original article to identify which estate/publication to which it belonged. The codebook and coding sheets were revised during the coder training process, based on feedback from the coders. This process is explained in detail in the following sections. Coder training. Four graduate students were recruited as coders. Coders were ed a codebook, two coding sheets, and two practice articles before an initial training meeting. They were instructed to review the codebook and coding sheets, and code each practice article. Initially, the coders found the coding sheet too specific and overwhelming. They felt that they understood the frames and could tell when a frame was present, but the questions were too specific for them to verify presence of the frame, which made the process overwhelming. The coders also provided feedback for the codebook. Both the codebook and coding sheet were revised after the initial meeting. The following changes were made based on coder feedback: Codebook: 45

55 1. Elite source definitions were updated to include current and former government officials or corporate employees. 2. An example was added for citizen, non-participant sources. 3. Direct quote description was updated to indicate that the quote must come from a source. 4. The descriptions for attention calling and context setting were updated by adding a colloquial summary of the frames. 5. Several stylistic changes were made to help coders refer to different sections of the codebook. Few changes were made to the coding sheet, including a reduction of the indicators for each frame. Originally all of the frames comprised 47 unique indicators. After the revision, the total number of unique indicators was reduced to 19. Stylistic changes were also made to the coding sheet to help the coders reference the codebook. After the revisions were complete, the coders were ed updated versions, asked to recode the two sample articles, and given one more sample article to complete for a second meeting. The second meeting was a norming session, which resulted in several changes to the codebook. No changes were made to the coding sheet. The following changes were made to the codebook: 1. Language was added to clarify the definition of a source, and that groups would be counted as one source. 2. Example words were added to the definition of attribution to help coders identify attributions in the articles. 46

56 3. Updates and clarifications were made to several frames. After the codebook was complete, training was also complete, and two coders were selected, based on availability, to complete coding for the entire sample. The training process consisted of about four hours of face-to-face time, and several individual hours for each coder. Coding and interrater reliability. Interrater reliability for the frame indicators was initially checked after the first ten articles of the sample were coded, which is approximately 10 percent of the sample, reliability was deemed satisfactory, and both coders were given another twenty articles to complete. Following that round, they were continuously given rounds of 30, until all 90 articles had been coded. Interrater reliability was then analyzed for the entire sample. Since both coders coded all 90 articles, and the data for the collapsed sources, frames, and attributions were nominal, dichotomous variables, I used Cohen s Kappa to determine agreement among the six types of sources, 19 indicators of the hegemonic and counter hegemonic frames, and attributions for each frame (Neuendorf, 2002). The sample did not violate the three assumptions of Kappa: 1) the units of analysis were independent; 2) the dichotomous categories (present/absent) were independent, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive; and 3) the raters operated independently (Cohen, 1960; Stemler, 2001). Table 2 shows the final agreement scores for each of the source variables, Table 3 shows the final level of agreement for the 19 frame indicators, and Table 4 shows the final agreement scores for the source attributions. In each of the tables, the variables are listed in order that they appear on the coding sheet (Appendix B), and they are labeled according to their question number on the coding sheet. 47

57 Table 2. Interrater Reliability Levels of Agreement for Sources (N =90) Sources (Question #) Kappa Statistic Government (1).382 Corporate (2).500 Occupy participants (3).368 Occupy supporters (4).306 Occupy opposition (5) Citizens (6).384 Table 3. Interrater Reliability Levels of Agreement for Frame Indicators (N =90) Frame Indicators (Question #) Kappa Statistic Private Control (7).511 Private Control (8).180 Legitimizing (9).194 Injustice (10).069 Attention Calling (11).535 Attention Calling (12).643 Context Setting (13).301 Context Setting (14).520 Social Order (15).041 Bothersome (16).695 Impotent (17).315 Unpatriotic (18) Trivialization (19).423 Polarization (20).399 Marginalization (21).372 Marginalization (22).760 Internal Dissent (23).061 Demonstration Violence (24).661 Delegitimizing Quotations (25)

58 Table 4. Interrater Reliability Levels of Agreement for Source Attributions Variable Kappa Statistic Private Control (7) Quote.295 Attribute.180 Text.442 Private Control (8) Quote.274 Attribute.127 Text.429 Legitimizing (9) Quote.127 Attribute.102 Text.109 Injustice (10) Quote.106 Attribute.031 Text.006 Attention Calling (11) Quote.166 Attribute.086 Text.555 Attention Calling (12) Quote.235 Attribute.157 Text.598 Context Setting (13) Quote.209 Attribute.032 Text.350 Context Setting (14) Quote.238 Attribute.161 Text.484 Social Order (15) Quote.014 Attribute

59 Variable Kappa Statistic Text Bothersome (16) Quote.496 Attribute.343 Text.496 Impotent (17) Quote.225 Attribute Text.315 Unpatriotic (18) Quote Attribute Text Trivialization (19) Quote.329 Attribute.015 Text.284 Polarization (20) Quote.544 Attribute.345 Text.240 Marginalization (21) Quote.304 Attribute.148 Text.229 Marginalization (22) Quote.301 Attribute.071 Text.614 Internal Dissent (23) Quote.089 Attribute.041 Text.008 Demonstration Violence (24) Quote.570 Attribute.324 Text

60 Variable Kappa Statistic Delegitimizing Quotations (25) Quote Attribute Text.211 Landis and Koch (1977) suggested levels of agreement for interpreting the Kappa statistic, which is shown below in Table 5 (p. 165). Cohen s Kappa calculates agreement between coders after accounting for chance (Cohen, 1960), making it a conservative criterion for agreement, which allows for a more liberal interpretation of the agreement statistic (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, & Bracken, 2002). Previous arguments have been made regarding latent content (subjective interpretation) and content analysis that is policy-driven (Lombard et al., 2002). Subjective content, since it must be interpreted, is more likely to resonate in other readers of the content. When policy is at stake, such as managerial decisions or public information campaigns, high reliability is paramount. Since this study is of an exploratory nature, the content is latent, and a conservative measurement is being used, a fair strength of agreement or above was used as the standard for this study. Table 5. Strength of Agreement for the Kappa Statistic Kappa Statistic Strength of Agreement <0.00 Poor Slight Fair Moderate Substantial Almost Perfect 51

61 CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Analysis After interrater reliabilities were calculated, all of the variables were recoded for analysis, except for estate/publication type. I will discuss the recoding procedure for each variable: sources, frames, and attributions. Sources were recoded from the original six source variables into two: elite and non-elite sources. The first two variables, government and corporate sources were recoded as elite sources, and the remaining five were recoded as non-elite, with the exception of Occupy opposition sources, which did not meet the minimum standard for interrater reliability. Both elite and non-elite sources were recoded into dichotomous variables as present (1.0) or absent (0.0). If the source was seen by at least one coder, it was counted as present. Hegemonic and counterhegemonic frames were originally measured dichotomously on the coding sheet by presence or absence. To take into account both coder data, frames that met the fair standard of agreement or above were recoded. The two sets of data from the coders were averaged to produce an ordinal-level variable of 0.0 (neither coder), 0.5 (one coder), and 1.0 (both coders). Source attributions were originally coded as three dichotomous variables per frame: direct quotes, attributed to a source, within the reporter s text. Depending on interrater reliability, the direct quotes and attributed to a source variables were collapsed into one dichotomous primary source variable, measured as present or absent. Since all of the data are either nominal or ordinal, crosstabs with a chi-square test of significance were used to analyze the data. For the frame data, several of the tests did not meet the assumption of the expected cell count, so those variables were recoded back into 52

62 dichotomous variables; 0.5 and 1.0 categories were collapsed into a present category, while 0.0 remained the absent category. Results The interrater agreement for the various indicators representing hegemonic frames varied. Nine of the indicators each represented by a question on the coding sheet met the minimum standard of fair (K = 0.21) or above for interrater reliability. (The coding sheet is available in Appendix B). There were three frames that had fair interrater reliability: the impotent frame (coding sheet question 17) of the public nuisance paradigm; the polarization frame (question 20); and the first of two indicators of the marginalization frame (question 21). There were three indicators with moderate levels of interrater reliability: the first of two indicators for the legitimacy of private control of commodity production frame (question 7); the trivialization frame (question 19); and the delegitimizing quotations frame (question 25). Three frames had indicators of which there was substantial agreement including the bothersome frame (question 16) of the public nuisance paradigm; the second of two indicators for the marginalization frame (question 22); and the demonstration violence frame (question 24) within other movement frames. Of the nine indicators that met the minimum requirement of agreement, eight were used for analysis. The indicator for the legitimacy of private control of commodity production frame (question 7) was not included because the frame consisted of two indicators, and the first indicator cannot capture the meaning of the frame independently. 53

63 Hegemonic Frames Hypotheses one and two proposed that hegemonic frames would be evident in publication types from the fourth estate, specifically traditional news articles and blogs from traditional news outlets, respectively. The first hypothesis (H1) stated that hegemonic frames would be evident in traditional news articles covering Occupy Wall Street. Hegemonic frames were measured through the instances of each frame indicator, with instances (as seen by both coders) ranging from 6.7% (N = 2) to 70.0% (N = 21) of the total sample. The percentage of news articles containing hegemonic frames, marked as present by both coders, is shown in Table 6. H1 is supported. Table 6. Percentage of News Articles Containing Hegemonic Frames as Marked Present by Both Coders (N = 30) Frame (Question Number) Two Coders % (N) Bothersome (16) 46.7 (14) Impotent (17) 6.7 (2) Trivialization (19) 23.3 (7) Polarization (20) 36.7 (11) Marginalization (21) 60.0 (18) Marginalization (22) 70.0 (21) Demonstration Violence (24) 30.0 (9) Delegitimizing Quotations (25) 30.0 (9) The second hypothesis (H2) stated that hegemonic frames would be evident in blogs from traditional news outlets about Occupy Wall Street. Blogs from traditional news outlets had fewer instances of hegemonic frames than the traditional news articles, but were still present in all 54

64 indicators. Instances ranged from 3.3% (N = 1) to 56.7% (N = 17). Table 7 shows the percentage of fourth-estate blogs containing hegemonic frames, marked as present by both coders. H2 is supported. Table 7. Percentage of Fourth-Estate Blogs Containing Hegemonic Frames as Marked Present by Both Coders (N = 30) Frame (Question Number) Two Coders % (N) Bothersome (16) 26.7 (8) Impotent (17) 3.3 (1) Trivialization (19) 13.3 (4) Polarization (20) 6.7 (2) Marginalization (21) 20.0 (6) Marginalization (22) 56.7 (17) Demonstration Violence (24) 10.0 (3) Delegitimizing Quotations (25) 20.0 (6) Research question one (RQ1) asked if hegemonic frames were evident in the fifth estate blogs. Evidence of hegemonic frames was seen in most of the frame indicators by both coders. Only the impotent frame, within the public nuisance paradigm, and the trivialization frame lacked evidence from both coders. In both frames, there was evidence from one coder. The impotent frame was marked present by one coder in 10.0% (N = 3) of the sample, and the trivialization frame was marked present in 11.1% (N = 2). Among the remainder of the frames, total instances ranged from 26.7% (N = 8) to 63.3% (N = 19). The percentage of fifth-estate blogs containing hegemonic frames, including instances marked present by one coder, instances 55

65 marked present by both coders, and total instances, is shown in Table 8. In response to RQ1, with the exception of two frames, hegemonic frames were evident in fifth-estate blogs. Table 8. Percentage of Fifth-Estate Blogs Containing Hegemonic Frames as Marked Present by One and Both Coders (N = 30) Frame (Question Number) One Coder % (N) Two Coders % (N) Total % (N) Bothersome (16) 6.7 (2) 20.0 (6) 26.7 (8) Impotent (17) 10.0 (3) 0.0 (0) 10.0 (3) Trivialization (19) 11.1 (2) 0.0 (0) 11.1 (2) Polarization (20) 26.7 (8) 10.0 (3) 36.7 (11) Marginalization (21) 40.0 (12) 16.7 (5) 56.7 (17) Marginalization (22) 13.3 (4) 50.0 (15) 63.3 (19) Demonstration Violence (24) 13.3 (4) 20.0 (6) 33.3 (10) Delegitimizing Quotations (25) 26.7 (8) 23.3 (7) 50.0 (15) Research question two (RQ2) asked if hegemonic frames were more evident in the publications from the fourth estate than in the fifth estate. Table 9 compares the total instances of each indicator of the hegemonic frames for publications from all estates. Among the estate categories, four frame indicators have significant differences (p < 0.5): the bothersome frame (question 16) of the public nuisance paradigm, the trivialization frame (question 19), the polarization frame (question 20), and the first indicator of the marginalization frame (question 21). Greater instances were seen in the news articles of the fourth estate in all four significant frames, compared to both the blogs of the fourth and fifth estates. For two of the significant frames, the bothersome frame and the trivialization frame, were more evident in the fourth-estate blogs than the fifth-estate blogs. Fourth-estate blogs had the same number of instances of the 56

66 marginalization frame as did the fifth-estate blogs. For the polarization frame, the fifth-estate blogs had more instances than blogs of the fourth estate. Differences between instances of hegemonic frames in the articles and blogs of the fourth estate ranged from a high of 26.6% for the polarization frame, to a low of 10% for the bothersome and trivialization frames. The differences were greater overall between the news articles of the fourth estate and the blogs of the fifth estate, with a high of 38.8% and a low of 23.3%. The differences between the fourthestate blogs and the fifth-estate blogs ranged from a high of 23.3% to a low of -3.3%, meaning that there were more instances in the fifth estate at that point. Table 10 shows the differences in percentages between each publication type. Table 9. Comparison of Percentages of Articles and Blogs with Hegemonic Frames Total % (N) Fourth Estate Fifth Estate χ 2 Frame (Question Number) Articles Blogs Blogs Bothersome (16) 60.0 (18) a * 50.0 (15) a * 26.7 (8) a * Impotent (17) 20.0 (6) 13.3 (4) 10.0 (3) Trivialization (19) 50.0 (15)** 40.0 (12)** 11.1 (2)** Polarization (20) 60.0 (18)* 33.3 (10)* 36.7 (11)* Marginalization (21) 80.0 (24)** 56.7 (17)** 56.7 (17)** Marginalization (22) 83.3 (25) a 63.3 (19) a 63.3 (19) a Demonstration Violence (24) 43.3 (13) a 23.3 (7) a 33.3 (10) a Delegitimizing Quotations (25) 50.0 (15) 46.7 (14) 50.0 (15) a Several indicators, when compared for significance, violated the chi-square minimum expected cell frequency, which should be five or greater. The 0.5 (seen by one coder) and 1.0 (seen by both coders) values were combined to create a dichotomous variable of 0.0 (absent) and 1.0 (present one or two coders). *p <.05 **p <

67 Table 10. Differences in Percentages of Hegemonic Frame Indicators between Publication Types/Estates Fourth Estate % Difference Fifth Estate Frame Indicators Articles Blogs Blogs Bothersome (16) Fourth Estate Articles Fourth Estate Blogs Fifth Estate Blogs Trivialization (19) Fourth Estate Articles Fourth Estate Blogs Fifth Estate Blogs Polarization (20) Fourth Estate Articles Fourth Estate Blogs Fifth Estate Blogs Marginalization (21) Fourth Estate Articles Fourth Estate Blogs Fifth Estate Blogs Note: To aid in the interpretation of the results, it is assumed that the blogs of the fourth estate would have fewer instances of hegemonic frames than news articles, and blogs of the fifth estate would have less hegemonic frames than blogs of the fourth, meaning that a negative reported percentage violates this assumption. A negative value indicates that the assumed lower category had more instances of a frame than the assumed higher category. This assumption is only to help clarify interpretation of the results and has no theoretical bearing. Counterhegemonic Frames Research question three (RQ3) asked whether counterhegemonic frames exist in the fourth and fifth estates. There were several counterhegemonic frames measured, which comprised five indicators. The frames included injustice frames and reframing acts. Reframing acts are further divided into two additional frame categories: attention calling and context setting. 58

68 Attention calling and context setting each consist of two indicators. Of the five indicators, four met the minimum standard of agreement (K = 0.21), the two for attention calling and context setting, meaning that all of the components of reframing acts met the minimum standard of agreement. The attention calling frames (questions 11 and 12) met the moderate and substantial standards, respectively. The context setting frames (questions 13 and 14) met the fair and moderate standards, respectively. Counterhegemonic frames were evident among all of the publication types/estates for each of the four indicators of the reframing act components. Table 11 shows the total instances of each indicator of the counterhegemonic frames for publications from all three categories. Instances in fourth-estate articles ranged from a low of 33.3% (N =10) to a high of 80% (N =24). Instances in the fourth-estate blogs ranged from 33.3% (N =10) to 56.7% (N = 17). Instances in fifth-estate blogs ranged from 60.0% (N = 18) to 83.3% (N = 25). Table 11. Total Instances of Counterhegemonic Frames in Fourth-Estate Articles, Fourth-Estate Blogs, and Fifth-Estate Blogs Total % (N) Fourth Estate Fifth Estate χ 2 Frame (Question Number) Articles Blogs Blogs Attention Calling (11) 80.0 (24)* 56.7 (17)* 80.0 (24) a * Attention Calling (12) 50.0 (15) 50.0 (15) 66.7 (20) Context Setting (13) 80.0 (24)* 56.7 (17)* 83.3 (25) a * Context Setting (14) 33.3 (10)** 33.3 (10)** 60.0 (18)** a Context setting frames are dependent on the existence of attention calling frames. The value for attention calling (question 11) is smaller than the value for its dependent frame, context setting (question 13), which should not be possible. The discrepancy exists in the raw data, where the attention calling frame was not marked. *p <.05 **p <

69 Research question four (RQ4) asked whether counterhegemonic frames are more evident in the fifth-estate blogs than the news articles and blogs of the fourth estate. This comparison can be seen in Table 11. Counterhegemonic frames with significant differences (p <.05) include reframing acts attention calling (question 11), and reframing acts context setting (questions 13 and 14). The fifth-estate blogs had more instances than the blogs of the fourth estate for all three significant indicators. The fifth-estate blogs had more instances than the news articles for the context-setting frame, and the same amount of instances for the first indicator of the attention-calling frame. Table 12 shows the differences in percentages between each publication type. 60

70 Table 12. Differences in Percentages of Counterhegemonic Frame Indicators between Publication Types/Estates Fourth Estate % Difference Fifth Estate Frame Indicators Articles Blogs Blogs Attention Calling (11) Fourth Estate Articles Fourth Estate Blogs Fifth Estate Blogs Context Setting (13) Fourth Estate Articles Fourth Estate Blogs Fifth Estate Blogs Context Setting (14) Fourth Estate Articles Fourth Estate Blogs Fifth Estate Blogs Note: To aid in the interpretation of the results, it is assumed that the blogs of the fourth estate would have fewer instances counterhegemonic frames than news articles, and blogs of the fifth estate would have less counterhegemonic frames than blogs of the fourth, meaning that a negative reported percentage violates this assumption. A negative value indicates that the assumed lower category had more instances of a frame than the assumed higher category. This assumption is only to help clarify interpretation of the results and has no theoretical bearing. Frames of the Fourth and Fifth Estates Research question five (RQ5) asked about the differences in the types of frames between the fourth and fifth estates. Differences exist between the estates in both hegemonic and counterhegemonic frames. For hegemonic frames, fourth-estate articles had more instances than fourth-estate blogs and fifth-estate blogs for all indicators that had a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Fourth-estate blogs had more instances of hegemonic frames than fifthestate blogs in all instances except one; the marginalization frame had an equal number of 61

71 instance in blogs from both estates. In regard to counterhegemonic frames, fifth-estate blogs had more instances or an equal number of instances as fourth-estate articles. Fourth-estate articles had more instances or an equal number of instances as fourth-estate blogs. Overall, fourth-estate blogs had fewer counterhegemonic frames than the other publication types. Figure 1 shows the differences among publication types in the number of articles with a presence for each frame. The dark line delineates hegemonic from counterhegemonic frames. The former is on the left side of the bar graph, and the latter is on the right side. Hegemonic Frames Counterhegemonic Frames Figure 1: Comparison of the number of instances of frames among publication types 62

72 # of Articles Figure 2 compares the instances of hegemonic and counterhegemonic frames within each publication type. The four bars on the left side of each grouping comprise the hegemonic frames, and the three bars on the right side comprise the counterhegemonic frames Fourth-Estate Articles Fourth-Estate Blogs Fifth-Estate Blogs Bothersome Trivialization Polarization Marginalization Government Attention Calling Government Context Setting Corporate Context Setting Figure 2: The number of instances of frames within publication type Note: The four bars on the left side within each publication type are hegemonic frames and the three bars on the right side are counterhegemonic frames. Elite and Non-Elite Sources Hypothesis three (H3) predicted that elite sources, both government and corporate representatives, are used to inform traditional news articles covering Occupy Wall Street. Elite sources were measured through the presence or absence of both government and corporate 63

73 sources. The presence of elite sources (seen by either one or two coders) in news articles measured 96.7% (N = 29) of the total sample of news articles (N = 30). H3 is supported. Research question six (RQ6) asked what type of sources were used to inform blogs of the fourth and fifth estates. Elite sources were used in 76.7% (N = 23) of fourth-estate blogs and 73.3% (N = 22) of fifth-estate blogs. Non-elite sources were used in 96.7% (N = 29) of blogs of both estates. Significant differences exist in the amount of articles/blogs that use elite sources (p =.038), which is shown in Figure 3. Furthermore, there is a significant difference among the amount of blogs/articles that rely on government sources (p =.010), but not corporate sources. The differences in government sources also can be seen in Figure 3. The use of non-elite sources is also shown in Figure 3, but there are no significant differences among estates. Figure 3: Source use among publication types/estates 64

74 Source Attributions Research question seven (RQ7) asks about the relationship between frames and how they are attributed to sources. There was not consistent interrater reliability among the types of attributes to adequately address the idea of attribution, including making a comparison among quotes, attributions, and text. 65

75 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION Hegemony is a process that maintains political control. Intellectuals use political and economic channels to convey an ideology to the public, and the public unknowingly consents to it (Boggs, 1976). Research has already suggested that media are hegemonic entities that reinforce ideology (Bielby & Moloney, 2008; Lewis, 1999a); however, little research has been conducted on the fifth estate, which has been referred to as the watchdog of the fourth estate (Cooper, 2006). This exploratory study described the existence of hegemonic and counterhegemonic frames in the fourth and fifth estates, and examined the differences among publications of the two estates, including news articles of the fourth estate, fourth-estate blogs, and fifth-estate blogs. It also compared the reliance of elite and non-elite sources within publications of the fourth and fifth estates. First, I will describe the existence of hegemonic and counterhegemonic frames within the publication types/estates. Next, I will compare frames across publication types. Finally, I will address source reliance. Frames within Estates Pre-Occupy Wall Street, Gitlin (2003) posited several hegemonic principles that appear in fourth-estate news, and provided several examples of social movement frames, observed through qualitative, inductive research. Using Gitlin and others, Di Cicco (2010) conducted a longitudinal, quantitative content analysis of three social movement frames, which he deemed the public nuisance paradigm. Di Cicco found that social movements were presented in the news as bothersome at an increasing rate over several decades. Two quantitative studies on news coverage of Occupy Wall Street found evidence of hegemonic frames. Gottlieb (2015) identified that news coverage of Occupy Wall Street 66

76 increased when arrests increased, and that most of the articles used conflict frames, which fit into the paradigm of social movement (hegemonic) frames. Xu (2013) identified the presence of six framing devices in Occupy Wall Street coverage that are akin to Gitlin s (2003) movement frames. None of the research just mentioned addressed hegemonic frames in fourth-estate blogs, counterhegemonic frames, or frames in the fifth estate. Within fourth-estate news articles, the majority of hegemonic and counterhegemonic frames were evident in half of the sample or more, with the exception of corporate context setting. The frames seen most often in fourth-estate articles were the marginalization frame (specifically, the indicator regarding police or official attempts to control protesters), which is consistent with previous research, and the two counterhegemonic frames questioning government actions, which is consistent with research defining news as the watchdog of the government (e.g., Deetz, 1993). Marginalization and government attention calling/context setting were seen in the same amount of articles. The two frames are related in that often, the marginalization frame is apparent when journalists are criticizing the government, specifically police, response to the protest. If the articles are calling into question police actions, they are just as often writing about the control of protesters, who already have a stigma of obstreperousness. For example, one fourth-estate news article described protestors, who did not have a permit, as confronting officers. The article went on to describe the police behavior: in regard to an officer s use of pepper spray, it said, as if he were spraying cockroaches, and in a separate instance, a senior officer, walked up to the corral, quickly doused several people standing there with pepper spray, and just walked off. The dichotomy in this one article explains the apparent relationship between the marginalization frame and the government attention calling/context setting. This 67

77 corroborates Gottlieb s (2015) data, which supports what he terms the protester s dilemma, in which protesters relationship to the media is a double-edged sword, in order to gain media attention, they must engage in deviant behavior, but that behavior also delegitimizes their message. This dilemma is problematic because drawing attention to police incivility isn t necessarily counterhegemonic, but instead, obfuscates the economic reform message and reinforces the stereotype of the obstreperous protester. Coders identified fewer instances of hegemonic and counterhegemonic frames overall for the fourth-estate blogs; however, the same pattern from the news articles appeared in the blogs. Fourth-estate blogs had an equal number of instances of the marginalization frame and the government attention calling/context setting frames. Again, the emphasis is often on the unruly nature of social movements and protesters. In a fourth-estate blog titled, Officer s Arrest Sought in Pepper Spray Incident the blogger quoted sources that suggested pepper spray is used in non-arrest situations only to subdue an emotionally disturbed person, and was used in this instance to control a group using force that obviated the use of batons. Within fifth-estate blogs, counterhegemonic frames appeared more frequently than hegemonic frames. Hegemonic frames were still present, with the exception of the trivialization frame. The absence of the trivialization frame makes sense given that some of the fifth-estate blogs were from bloggers associated with the movement. So, it is unlikely that movement supporters would trivialize their own cause. Hegemonic frames that were present revolved around police control, social order, and extremes within the movement. In fact, police control, like the fourth-estate categories, appeared most frequently among all of the hegemonic frames, suggesting that the fifth-estate blogs are replicating the obstreperous narrative afforded to social 68

78 movements (and its protestors) similar to publications of the fourth estate. This pattern exists in all three categories, with fewer instances in fourth-estate blogs, that the marginalization frame is most frequent, and in an equal number of instances as the counterhegemonic frames that call government actions into question. An example in the fifth estate, similar to the prior two examples, comes from an article subtitled Exposing Police Lies. Phrases like crusade against free assembly were attributed to the police throughout the blog, along with instances of people being injured and hospitalized. Despite the obvious tilt toward police brutality, both coders identified the marginalization frame, as it was apparent that protesters were attempting to reoccupy the space after having been removed. This similar pattern within estates is interesting for two reasons: 1) it implies that though there are significant differences among the estates within some of the individual frames, there isn t much of a difference in the overall pattern. There is a difference in frequency for the fourthestate blogs, but the overall pattern remains apparent. 2) It seems that a bulk of the counterhegemonic frames related to the government are focused on police brutality, which reinforces the stereotype that protesters are deviant and obstreperous, and also focuses the conflict on police versus protesters, not the subject of political and economic inequality, which is the overall goal of the movement. This type of coverage equivocates the crux of the movement, in a way that can actually promote hegemony and not a counterhegemonic ideology. Hegemonic Frames Gitlin (2003) suggests that news routines influence content that is not contradictory to dominant hegemonic principles. He lists several principles including: the legitimacy of private control of commodity production, the right and ability of authorized agencies to manage conflict 69

79 and make the necessary reforms, and the legitimacy of the social order secured and defined by the dominant elites. All of these principles should be present in news article frames. Through qualitative research, Gitlin identified six specific frames present in news coverage of social movements: trivialization, polarization, marginalization, internal dissent, demonstration violence, and delegitimizing quotations. As hypothesized in this study, hegemonic frames existed in the samples taken from the fourth estate, both in news articles and in blogs. To a lesser extent, hegemonic frames existed in the fifth estate as well. Based on the interrater reliability statistics, the easiest frames to identify across all three publication categories were the bothersome frame, the marginalization frame, and the demonstration violence frame. These three frames are related in that they identify different areas of movement deviance. Each frame represents the following, respectively: whether a movement is disruptive to everyday activities, if protesters are deviant and require police control, and if there is violence associated with movement activities. These three frames seemed to be the most clearly communicated and unambiguous in the codebook, making them easier to identify in text, but they are also more likely to be associated with events that are considered news, based on traditional and nontraditional criteria to identify news value. For example, many of the articles and blogs in the sample focused on police attempts to control protesters, and reports of police overzealousness and brutality, specifically the use of pepper spray. These accounts tend to describe acts that warrant police response, which are seen as inherently deviant. This evidence is consistent with Gitlin s (2003) qualitative frames, but it is also consistent with the quantification of those frames (e.g. Di Cicco, 2010; Xu, 2013). 70

80 Willis (2007) describes traditional and non-traditional criteria of news value, which relate to the social movement frames. Two criteria, one traditional and one non-traditional, connect to the idea that police response and protester deviance are newsworthy: conflict and order. Conflict, just as in a narrative story, is, by its disposition, interesting. Order, the non-traditional criteria, accounts for the amount of crime in news. As Willis describes it, crime is the antithesis of and a real threat to order (p. 46). He also specifically mentions protests or demonstrations that get out of hand as being part of this criterion. The bothersome and marginalization frames were among the most identified frames in all three publication categories across the two estates. Significant differences existed in the bothersome frame and in one indicator of the marginalization frame, which consisted of two indicators. The bothersome frame was more evident in the news articles and blogs of the fourth estate than the fifth-estate blogs, and the marginalization frame was more prevalent in the news articles than the blogs of either estate. However, the one indicator of the marginalization frame, which identified police attempts to control protesters, was the most prevalent hegemonic frame in all three publication/estate types. This indicates that either police action toward protesters is the most newsworthy or covered aspect of the movement, in accordance with previous research and the criteria (noted above) that Willis (2007) suggests, or that subjective coders can interpret police action more easily than other frames because it is more concrete. In the sample articles and blogs in which both coders could identify police action, there seemed to be specific instances of how the protesters drew police response. Even in the fifth-estate blogs, which used phrases like allegedly to mitigate protester culpability and focused more on vitriol toward police, there were still descriptions of the protester acts. 71

81 The presence of two more hegemonic frames was significantly different across the publication/estate categories: trivialization and polarization. The trivialization frame makes light of aspects of the movement, and attempts to downplay these aspects. Previously, the trivialization frame has been measured qualitatively (Gitlin, 2003). In my sample, there were significantly fewer instances of this frame in the fifth estate than in the publications of the fourth estate. In fact, it was one of the least recognizable frames within the fifth-estate blogs. As stated earlier, some of the fifth-estate blogs come from blogs associated with the movement, so it is unlikely that movement supporters would want to trivialize their own cause. Trivialization did exist in greater numbers in the fourth estate. Both coders identified trivialization in one fourthestate blog that did not reiterate any of the movement demands, but reported on a surprise performance by Jeff Mangum, lead singer of the band Neutral Milk Hotel. The blog described a modest crowd of protesters seeking autographs, and it also referred to a rumor about a performance by the band Radiohead, which never happened, but also made headlines. The blog culminated with a quote from a 20-year-old protester who would be job-hunting if she weren t at the demonstration: It s going to be all over Facebook and that s going to bring more people here. Maybe not for the best reasons, but who cares? Polarization, which focuses on extremists within the movement, has been identified previously by Gitlin (2003). While it hasn t been measured quantitatively, per se, this frame is closely related to the show framing device in coverage of Occupy Wall Street, which measures performance and theatrics, and was one of the most widely used framing devices (Xu, 2013, p. 2418). In my sample, it was recognized significantly more in fourth-estate news articles than fourth estate or fifth-estate blogs, but was seen slightly more frequently in the fifth-estate blogs. 72

82 Fifth-estate blogs will sometimes repost relevant news articles from the fourth-estate. In one example from the sample, Protesters to Be Met with Force If They Target Officers, polarization was seen in the sheer numbers of arrests, more than 20 on one day. Extreme actions of protesters were also described: What they did is counted. They actually had a countdown 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 they grouped together, they joined arms and they charged the police. They attacked the police. They wanted to get into Wall Street, they wanted to occupy Wall Street. Extremism, measured via polarization or show, fits with the traditional news value of uniqueness (see Willis, 2007). Counterhegemonic Frames As described above, hegemonic frames were apparent in the fourth estate, and to a lesser extent in the fifth. Since the fifth estate is free of corporate influence, in terms of ownership and advertising, it is reasonable to expect that this type of coverage would not only be less associated with hegemonic frames, but also associated with counterhegemonic frames. Furthermore, the fifth estate is described as the watchers of the watchdogs (Cooper, 2006), meaning that the fifth estate as a collection of independent voices can serve to keep corporate media in check through lack of practices such as gatekeeping. Using this logic, we would expect to see counterhegemonic frames evident in blogs of the fifth estate, which they were. However, they were also evident in news articles, and to some extent in fourth-estate blogs. Government attention calling, which identifies an issue in which the government acted questionably, and government context setting, which specifies what the particular questionable act was, were more frequently observed than other counterhegemonic frames in all three estates. The same number of instances existed in the fourth-estate news articles and in the fifth-estate blogs; there were 73

83 fewer instances in the fourth-estate blogs. However, as mentioned above, this was often due to coverage of police-protester conflict. As for corporate attention calling and context setting, both existed in more instances within fifth-estate blogs. There were equal instances in the fourthestate news articles and fourth-estate blogs for both corporate frames. The rate of counterhegemonic frames in the fourth-estate news articles is somewhat unexpected because of the idea that the fourth estate is a purveyor of hegemony (Bielby & Moloney, 2008; Lewis, 1999a). However, it is reasonable that news articles would have a high rate of counterhegemonic frames, in that fourth-estate news acts as a watchdog of the state, just as the fifth-estate serves as a watchdog of the press through independent voices (Cooper, 2006; Dutton, 2009). There are three aspects of these patterns, however, that are concerning. First, the fourth-estate blogs contained overall fewer counterhegemonic frames than the other two categories. While fourth-estate blogs are considered opinion pieces, they are still included in the fourth estate, and sometimes located on news websites beside news stories, making their status as an opinion piece ambiguous. Although the opinion staff is not the same as the journalistic staff in major news outlets, they enjoy the prestige and credibility of their news outlets. If hegemonic frames are more prevalent than counterhegemonic frames in this publication category, this could be a source of hegemony, and is deserving of future exploration. Second, fourth-estate news articles contain more counterhegemonic frames regarding the government than corporations. Frames regarding these two entities were measured in the same way, through attention-calling and context-setting frames, but distinguished between acts of government and corporate leaders. Having more government than corporate counterhegemonic frames is problematic in terms of hegemonic ideology. Dutton (2009) articulates that the purpose 74

84 of the fourth estate is to be a watchdog of the first through third estates public intellectuals, economic elite, and the state, but Dunbar (2005) mentions that news organizations are themselves owned by corporations, and he critiques their lack of transparency in the process of production and the conspiracy of silence in which news organizations are unwilling to cover the FCC, which is their own industry (p. 128). In this sample, when a corporate leader was called out for acting questionably, there were instances in which the questionable act was not clearly articulated, contributing further to the opacity of corporate accountability. While media may be fulfilling their role of keeping watch over the third estate, the second the economic elite goes largely unchecked, according to my sample. To add further complexity, the first three estates are sometimes likened to the three branches of government, leaving out private corporations all together (Dutton, 2009). Third, and related to my second point, fifth-estate blogs also had fewer instances of counterhegemonic frames related to corporations, though they had more than the fourth estate. This is surprising since the blogs were about a movement focused on economic inequality. If corporate accountability is off-limits to, or hidden from, the press and the fifth estate, it would be near impossible to address issues regarding corporations. Additionally, if a corporate leader acts questionably, the corporation can dismiss the person and disassociate from them, leaving the corporate reputation intact, especially if there is no context for the wrongdoing. Related to this disassociation are questionable acts of the government. Since the government is a large bureaucratic body, it is possible to call acts into question, provide context, and still have no accountability for the act. This is problematic because it is the government s role, as the third estate, to regulate private corporations, but both corporations and the government (in the context 75

85 of corporate regulation) seem to be going largely unchecked. In this sample, government attention-calling that existed in the fourth estate mostly occurred in articles about police involvement, the right of the protesters to remain in Zuccotti Park, and protesters appearing in court. Mention of movement goals in the fourth estate usually included mention that it was a leaderless movement, and those stories were rife with trivialization of the movement and suggestions that it would be ineffective. Only the fifth-estate blogs addressed government and corporate wrong doing in terms of the economic inequality with any consistency. (There were only a couple of examples in the fourth-estate articles and blogs.) I should also note that the corporate counterhegemonic frames that did exist in the fourthestate articles were often located in quotes taken from protesters. Gottlieb (2015) reported similar findings in that some news stories had an economic frame, but in less frequency than conflict frames, and he defined these frames of substantive matters using the phrase grievances of protesters (p. 5). In the articles in my study that contained corporate counterhegemonic frames, there were also impotent, trivialization, and polarization frames. These articles often referred to the movement as leaderless with no focus, and they had descriptions of eccentric protesters. One of these articles referred to the movement demands as complaints, and mentioned that Joblessness seems to be a theme. Elite and Non-Elite Sources Another argument to explain the existence of hegemonic ideology in traditional news is reporters reliance on sources representing elite, or corporate, interests (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996), and fifth-estate bloggers often rely on linking to mainstream sources to gain and keep readership, which links back to the same fourth-estate sources (Cooper, 2006). There were 76

86 significant differences in the use of elite sources among the three publication/estate categories, including a significant difference in the use of government sources, one of the two types of elite sources. The fourth-estate articles relied on the most government sources, and the fourth-estate blogs relied on the least amount of government sources. This is interesting considering that the news articles had the most hegemonic frames, but also a greater instance of counterhegemonic frames related to the government. Journalists often pose tough questions to sources, which could account for the greater use of government sources and the greater instances of counterhegemonic frames related to government. Fourth-estate blogs relied on government sources in fewer instances, which could also explain the overall reduction in hegemonic and counterhegemonic frames. The fifth-estate blogs relied on elite sources, which included both corporate and government, and only government sources in the same amount of articles, which, similar to the news articles, could account for the high rate of counterhegemonic frames related to government. Although there were no significant differences between government and corporate sources in the fourth estate, it is alarming that fewer corporate sources are used, and therefore, left out of this process of accountability. There are a couple of possibilities for the lack of corporate accountability. First, journalists must rely on who will talk to them. Corporations can be less transparent by publishing carefully crafted press releases. The second part relates back to the idea that the press does not cover stories within their own industry, adding to the opacity of the process. Xu (2013) used official sources, defined as law enforcement and government officials, as a framing device (p. 2420). Official sources had no predictive impact on the overall 77

87 tone, defined as either neutral/positive or negative. Corporate sources were not measured in this study. Limitations and Future Research There are several limitations related to the exploratory and nascent characteristics of this study, which heuristically suggest areas of further investigation and new methods for investigating this topic. I will discuss three areas in which limitations exist, and where future research would benefit the body of literature related to media hegemony: 1) audience and readership, 2) agenda-setting theory, and 3) positivist macro-level research. Audience and Circulation In order for media to promote and maintain an elite ideology among the public and, therefore, strengthen hegemonic culture, two processes must happen. First, media must surreptitiously reinforce corporate and political interests of the elite class (Gitlin, 2003; Grossberg, 1984). Second, the public must be subconsciously persuaded by media content to acquiesce to the status quo, which minimizes or eliminates public dissent (i.e. manufactured consent) (Artz, 2006; Eyerman, 1981; Gitlin, 2003; Herman & Chomsky, 2002; Lewis 1999a). This is related to the distinction between media frames and audience frames, the former being related to media content and the latter how that content is interpreted. This study mostly focuses on the first aspect of hegemony, and not the second. However, unlike manifest codes, which are objective, surface-level, and easily identified, this study uses the pattern form of latent content, which Potter and Levine-Donnerstein (1999) describe as content that must be inferred by recognizing a pattern across elements (p. 261). Arguably, since the content must be inferred by a coder, it has been recognized by a person who 78

88 has not been familiarized with the concept of hegemony, but is using descriptions of hegemonic principles to identify each frame. Through this study, frames have been identified by people, but the study does not address how a person may internalize or process these frames. Additionally, people s political predispositions motivate their media choices, choosing likeminded media outlets (Stroud, 2008). Stroud also found evidence that media can strengthen people s political identities or ideology. This study presents evidence that counterhegemonic frames exist in the fifth estate more than the fourth. Starting around 2013, fifth-estate (digital) news organizations made moves to hire editorial staff from major news corporations, and readership for some of these outlets have increased (Mitchell & Page, 2014). However, digital outlets like Yahoo News, The Huffington Post and Buzzfeed are among the most read, and don t solely focus on hard news (Newman et al., 2016). These three outlets are the only digital news outlets that seem to be able to compete with the fourth-estate digital outlets for readership. The fifth-estate blogs used in this study (and similar ones) have more niche audiences, people who seek out alternative news, so their readership is smaller than traditional, established, corporate news organizations. Furthermore, there may be a stigma associated with alternative news that doesn t exist with mainstream news, similar to the stigma associated with protesters. Ultimately, the fourth estate still has the higher ratings. News dissemination through social media has also gained momentum over recent years, with 46% of people reporting they use social media for news (Newman et al., 2016). Social media, however, are still constructed around people s preferences and social circles users choose their own connections which are mediated by the sites proprietary algorithms. Social media are corporations themselves, and have some of the same problems with the opacity of their 79

89 processes, as mentioned earlier. Additionally, traditional news and the popular digital outlets mentioned earlier have a better presence on social media. We already know that people seek out news that coincides with their current views and, we know that the top online traditional news sites receive more daily and individual traffic than the top blogs (Newman et al., 2016; Stroud, 2008). While this study used top online traditional news sites, the two blogs used do not have nearly the readership of traditional news, so the impact of their reports likely go largely unnoticed. Blogs with high readership also range in topics, with few of the sites focusing on hard news. This sample used The Wall Street Journal as one fourth-estate publication, which focuses on business, financial and economic news. This publication had fewer counterhegemonic frames than The New York Times. In fact, the only article from The Wall Street Journal that seemed to give legitimacy to the movement, compared it to previous protests against Wall Street, and made the argument that this movement was more effective because it was modeled after the Arab Spring A next step would be to address how news choices and readership patterns correlate to an audience s (or individuals ) ideology, through generalizable surveys or experiments that focus on individuals ideological thoughts in response to real or contrived news. Agenda-Setting Theory and Priming Agenda-setting concerns the issue of salience: the emphasis that mass media place on issues, including frequency and prominence, correlates to the importance that audiences place on these issues (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). Priming assumes that the salience of an issue, or frame, impacts the criteria by which an audience evaluates the issue, treating agenda-setting as the independent variable and the effects of priming as the dependent (Scheufele, 2000). Agenda- 80

90 setting and priming are related to framing, and while Weaver, McCombs, and Shaw (1998) suggested that priming and framing are natural extensions of agenda-setting and should be integrated into a single theory, Scheufele (2000) argues that the three are related, but discrete, approaches to political communication (Scheufele, 2000, p. 297). The two aspects of framing, frame-building, which results in media frames, and frame-setting, which results in audience frames, can be studied within a single issue, such as Occupy Wall Street. Agenda-setting and priming, on the other hand, require a more external analysis because of the issue of salience. An issue must be studied within the context of the larger media agenda, including the relationship of an issue to other news stories in frequency and prominence of coverage. In order to include agenda-setting and priming in the discussion of hegemony and media effects, context of the larger media agenda would have to be considered in methodological choices, as well as consideration of audience analysis at a macro-level. Positivist Macro-Level Research While this study provided an attempt at quantifying previously theoretical and qualitative research, there are several aspects that could be addressed in order to improve upon and replicate it. Interrater reliability. The frames, including definitions and measurement, could be improved upon to obtain more reliable coding among raters, providing more support for the presence of each frame. Several frames had good agreement between the two coders. Further clarification of frames, including concrete examples from media content in this study and finding examples from articles on topics other than Occupy, could help train coders and increase interrater reliability for future research. In one example, both coders were able to identify 81

91 delegitimizing quotations in a fourth-estate news article. The article used the term leaderless in quotations, but did not attribute it to a source (so it could not be a direct quotation), making it an example of delegitimizing quotations. The term was also present in other frames used to delegitimize the movement. With the current increase in digital activism, leaderless movements are becoming more popular, and, therefore, could be used for training coders. For example, two of the three frames of the public nuisance paradigm had decent reliability, the bothersome frame had substantial interrater reliability and the impotent frame had fair interrater reliability. Of the six movement frames that Gitlin (2003) had qualitatively identified, five of them had fair reliability or better, with most of them having moderate or substantial reliability. Gitlin s movement frames and the public nuisance paradigm focused mainly on protester deviance, which may be a good topic to concentrate on in future research. For example, the trivialization frame downplays characteristics of the movement. In her notes on the publications, one coder questioned why the reporter was even talking about a tangential and trivial aspect of the movement; it seemed off-topic. There were many instances of this, but one or both coders didn t always recognize them. The New York Times, for instance, ran a news article dedicated to Zuccotti Park romantic connections, and it included verbatim instances of the Missed Connections section in New York City s Craigslist. The section has been used previously as fodder for comedy. The trivialization frame is one of the frames that should be edited for future research. I would extend the definition to include articles such as this. The frames that had poor or slight agreement need to be reevaluated for future research. Legitimizing frames, ones that reinforce social order, had slight agreement. Both coders were able to identify it in a fourth-estate news article that focused on an Occupy Newark branch of the 82

92 protest, which had unfolded with disarming civility. It was referred to as amicable, and grievances included murder rate, the city s unemployment levels, and layoffs last year to the police force, hardly topics that criticize corporate bailouts and economic inequality on a macrolevel. Instead, these statements reinforce the idea that even social movements should be orderly and play by the rules, so-to-speak. A separate fourth-estate article, which discussed whether democrats should support the movement or distance themselves, the reporter used clean-cut examples of protesters and extreme examples ( a veteran of the marijuana-legalization movement, lay on the lawn while a graffiti artist painted a mural on her body that included the message Prosecute Wall Street and a green cannabis leaf ) to suggest that many protesters would turn away moderate voters. This is also an example of reinforcement of social order, but only one coder identified it as such. These examples should be incorporated into coder training on future movements in order to clarify what the frame might look like to coders. External validity. Now that there is some baseline data for the existence of hegemonic frames, external validity should be considered in future iterations of measurement. Measures should be developed with a concern for using them across political and economic news, despite the specific topic. In addressing validity, it may be better to focus first on specific events within larger movement narratives to obtain concrete examples, and then begin to generalize toward larger movement news and other political and economic topics. For example, one fifth-estate blog in the sample, written in the style of a news article, covered a planned march by the Occupy protesters that ended with several arrests. The title of the publication was NY Police Attack Protesters: Scores Injured, Arrested. There were examples of government (police) attention 83

93 calling and context setting, protesters said they were beaten and even pepper sprayed by police, but there were also examples of deviant behavior by protesters, allegedly knocked a policeman from his scooter, and marchers were blocking traffic and did not have a permit to march. All of these frames were unanimously seen by coders. The blog also had an example of impotency: marchers did not have a single set of goals, but neither of the coders saw this frame because the frame was defined to look for instances of movement ineffectiveness, and this phrasing is more subtle. This phrasing is also unique to a leaderless movement, and leaderless movements postdate the main body of literature on social movements. Conclusion In conclusion, this study has heuristic value for positivist approaches to hegemony in the media, and implications for further research in the area media effects. Next steps should focus on revising the measurement of hegemonic frames, incorporating agenda-setting and priming, and including audience analysis. To return to Gramsci s description of hegemony, which is derived from Marx and Engels s ideology, although he uses the term counter-hegemony to describe a truly transformative social movement, the concept belies his views of hegemony, which is organic. As Althusser (1969) explains of Marx and Engels: So ideology is as such an organic part of every social totality. It is as if human societies could not survive without these specific formations, these systems of representations (at various levels), their ideologies. Human societies secrete ideology as the very element and atmosphere indispensable to their historical respiration and life (p. 232). 84

94 The goal moving forward is to study the media s role in ideology, hegemony, and false consciousness through the dialectic of critique and positivism. If hegemony is truly pervasive, can a counter-hegemony ever truly exist or is consciousness of this process the ultimate goal? Williams (1973) theorizes the idea of an emergent culture, which can emerge out of opposition, such as social movements. Oppositional cultures want to change the dominant culture, similar to Gramsci s counter-hegemony, but emergent cultures incorporate new meanings, values, practices, significances and experiences, which are continually created. In an organic view of hegemony, an emergent culture seems likely. A longitudinal goal of this research is to map attitudinal shifts over time, and the impact of media and social movements on these shifts. Whether culture is emergent or counterhegemonic, can opposition to capitalism ever succeed? Deetz (1993) predicted that academics would need to take over the media s role of watchdog. Perhaps, through more of this type of research, the fifth estate becomes an outlet through which academics and other activists can bring consciousness to the public. 85

95 APPENDIX A: CODEBOOK 86

96 Introduction The purpose of this study is to conduct a content analysis in order to explore social movements in news media. You will be reading a series of articles about the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement and identifying how they are framed in each article. You will do this based on a coding sheet with a series of yes/no questions. The concept of framing is discussed below followed by a brief description of the coding process and descriptions of each frame. Frames In communication research, the term framing originates from photography and cinematography and refers to the way a photographer would angle the camera to get the desired perspective. Just as a photographer can angle the camera to alter the perspective, a journalist can angle a story to achieve a certain perspective. By putting a frame, or perspective, on a story, journalists can organize the information effectively while also making the information easier for the audience to process. Since frames create an organization for journalists and their audience, the news frames that journalists choose can also have a substantial effect on how an audience understands a story. Although frames can affect how an audience understands a story, readers are often not even aware that they are present. As a coder, your job is to critically read each story with the goal of identifying the presence or absence of certain frames from each article. The following pages of this codebook will describe each frame and what it should look like in the articles. You will use the frame definitions and examples to answer the questions located on the coding sheet. Directions 1. Read each article once before attempting to code. 2. Write the Article Identifying number on the upper-right corner of the code sheet. The Article Identifying number is located on the upper-right corner of each article. 3. Identify the sources used in each article. For an individual to be counted as a source, they must be associated with either a quote or an attribution. This could be a named or anonymous 87